On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>> but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a
>>> computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and
>>> time that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine it
>>> in no time and no space. IMHO.
>> That's what I think too, geometry without space isn't geometry, so that
>> there is no reason to assume that mathematics produces geometric
>> presentations, or that it could possibly produce them. If we want
>> mathematics to occupy space, we have to pull that possibility out of thin
>> air, as well as the capacity for numbers to suddenly do that (and why would
>> they need to?)
> Doesn't the quantum physical reality of information mean that all math
> *is* geometry?
> Put another way, math without a substratum would be in some platonic
> world, and not the real one, so aren't you basically asking if there's some
> way to do math without form?
Even if math requires form, it still only requires a binary-digital form,
not geometric presentations. I'm not asking if there's a way of doing math
without form, I am asserting that form does not follow from math, and would
be useless, redundant, and probably impossible for math to generate if we
assume math in a Platonic world.
> Forgive me if I'm being an idoit. ;)
Not at all, I thought it was a good question.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.