# Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

```
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:38, John Mikes wrote:```
```
```
```Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.
```
```
Question are never silly.

```
```I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in

```
"...How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them..."
```
of circularity: we have to assume them to be able to derive them.
```
```
```
Well, that the definition of an axiom. We just accept it, if only for the sake of the argument. Then we can prove them, by using the rule that we accept the axioms. It is not circular, it is based on the fact that we accept that p -> p, or the rule that from p, we can derive p.
```
```
For example in group theory, we accept that there is a neutral element. Then later one, if we are asked to justified the use of a neutral element, we can just say that we are working in a group, in which it exists, by definition, or axiom.
```

```
```If not, not.
```
BTW I feel free to disagree with your "just assumed" argument WITHOUT being obliged to produce a (better?) counter-theory.
```
That is your right. No doubt.

```
```
Then again:
```
"...Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk about them..."
```
```
Talk about WHAT? if they are NOT quantizing factors, NOT representing "signs", how could you IDENTIFY the t e r m : NUMBER? (not just by another word of course).
```
```
By doing a lot of exercise, like in high school, you can develop a familiarity with them, and accept some defining axioms. The brain does not really help; you need your heart. I might ask you how you identify the term "woman". It is the same difficulty. We have to live with many things that we cannot defined.
```

```
It seems your mental base builds ON numbers (whatever they may be) - not on qualia (musical complexity, emotions, feelings, etc. that do not spring from 'numbers').
```
```
That is due to cultural factor. But then in science, we want our theories not depending on interpretation, still less on emotions. But in private we sometimes point on them, like Einstein said that a theory, to be true, needs to be beautiful. Same with the numbers. Mathematicians are usually super-emotional beings, for the best, and the worst.
```

```
```
```
Sorry about the last sentence (conclusion of the previous passage) in which I used "Nature" instead of "world" "existence" or whatever.
```
Thanks for reassuring me.

```
The reductionistic part of the totality to which we assign all we think about.
```
... to which some people assign what they all think about, I would say.
```
About nature, I am agnostic. But when I'm in the comp mood, I definitely don't believe in it.
```
Bruno

```
```
JM

```
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
```John,

On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:

```
Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art to measure each one into a proper participant):
```
```
"...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without using 2+2=4...."
```Bruno "

```
Explain, why 2+2=4 - without (human?) quantizing - even without using dots or marks and 'counting' them. Numbers? a joke.
``` "Because you said so?"  How did it arise?
```
```
```
I assume them. It is part of the card I put on the table. Feel free to develop another theory.
```
```
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.
```

```
What is 'counting'? assigning SOMEHOW a 'heap' to a sign you invented?
```
```
Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk about them. Numbers status is independent of the signs used to refer to them, a bit like galaxies in the physical universe are usually supposed to be independent of human telescope.
```

```
```How 'bout another logic, another vision? (Zarathustran?)
```
```
```
How could I understand what you mean by "another logic" or "another vision" without using the intuition of numbers?
```This just make no sense for me.
```
Also numbers have nothing to do with logic. Again, logic is a mental tool, and formal logics presuppose our understanding of numbers. Then computationalism derived eight important different logics that the numbers already develop by themselves to understand themselves, so here you have your another logics. Numbers agree with you, somehow. But you have to recognize them to be able to listen to them, and indeed go farer than the human views.
```

```
```
```
Go back and back and back in your presumptions/assumptions into more-and-more generalizations and you will find the human image you substitute for Nature (call it reality, existence, The World, - or Whatever (Everything).
```
I do not assume Nature.
The distinction between nature and human is a human artifice.
```
More generally, the distinction between nature and numbers is a number artifice. It is an illusion, in the comp theory, even if it is an important lawful one, from the numbers and/or from the human points of view.
```

```
The "model" we have about our up-to-date inventory of knowables in this - what?
```
I don't understand this sentence.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
```
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
```To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
```For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
```
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
```To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
```For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

```
```
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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