> On 16 Dec 2018, at 10:29, 'scerir' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > A numerus (literally: "number"i) was the term used for a unit of the Roman > army <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army>.. In the Imperial Roman army > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_army> (30 BC – 284 AD), it > referred to units of barbarian <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian> > allies who were not integrated into the regular army structure of legions > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion> and auxilia > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliaries_(Roman_military)>. > > I'm inclined to think that numbers - for there obiectivity - need a good > "counter" (somebody or somethink). > > 'I raised just this objection with the (extreme) ultrafinitist Yessenin > Volpin during a lecture of his. He asked me to be more specific. I then > proceeded to start with 2^1 and asked him whether this is "real" or something > to that effect. He virtually immediately said yes. Then I asked about 2^2, > and he again said yes, but with a perceptible delay. Then 2^3, and yes, but > with more delay. This continued for a couple of more times, till it was > obvious how he was handling this objection. Sure, he was prepared to always > answer yes, but he was going to take 2^100 times as long to answer yes to > 2^100 then he would to answering 2^1. There is no way that I could get very > far with this.' -Harvey M. Friedman > > Dunno if in each every part of this universe there is a good "counter". > Maybe universe itself, as a whole, is a "counter”?. >
Sure. Any argument showing that the primary universe exist would be a refutation of Mechanism. That is why we do the test, but they confirm that the primary universe do not exist, and actually, they refute already that a primary universe can make sense. That is understood and normal for most physicists. Only materialist philosophers (dogmatic believers) have a problem with this, but they don’t argue. They insult, or talk with dismiss tones, etc. > 'Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. > Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations > conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more > overnight. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite > one's most respected colleagues to contribute to other squares. At the end of > these labors, one has worked oneself out into the doorway. Stand up, look > back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise > one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those > equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe > "flies".(Wheeler on page 1208 of Gravitation) > > That mystery is solved with mechanism. There is just no “Universe”. Only a persistent idea shared by all universal number in arithmetic. 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
