On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?" >> >> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it >> is a fact that 1+1=2. >> >> > These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All it > takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. > > > It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 would > still be equal to 2. >
Not if you were the only mind left in the universe. > > > > Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to > everything. > > > 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that theory. > Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense. > > > > Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining > cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the sense which > objects make when we count them. > > > No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot. > Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled. > > > > That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal > objects to virtual objects, > > > If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an > hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use. > A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties. > > > > but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior. > > > You don't know that. > I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary. > > > It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is already > feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a thing could > exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be anything. > > > OK, but your argument have never shown that. > No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to make the argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself. Craig > > Bruno > > > > > -- > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > 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 to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
