# Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

```Allow me please, one more remark:
my ID for an axiom is *a "ground-rule" derived to facilitate the acceptance
of a theory.*
I suspect the axioms were invented AFTER the theoretical considerations to
make them acceptable. They are called axioms because we cannot justify
their acceptability.
I am not ready to defend this.
JM
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:```
```
>  On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> I'm not sure how you mean that?
>
>
>  I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in
> appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All
> theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal.
> So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and
> want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can
> derive the numbers from the equational theory:
>
>  Kxy = x
> Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
>  + few equality rules,
>
>  But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the
> number than elementary arithmetic.
>
>
>
>
>  We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them
> by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks.
> So what are you calling an "assumption" in this?
>
>
>  A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences
> motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.
>
>
> But "justify logically" seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We just make
> up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make
> up, preserve 'true'.  To say that it is "justified logically" seems to mean
> no more than "we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know."  Sure it's
> important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if
> our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but
> mere consistency doesn't justify anything.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> 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
> 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