> On 26 Oct 2019, at 21:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/2019 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 25 Oct 2019, at 23:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/25/2019 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 20:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/23/2019 6:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> NUMBER explains CONSCIOUSNESS which explains the origin of the physical >>>>>> MATTER, which explains the origin of the physical human body and its >>>>>> local consciousness. >>>>> Which explains NUMBER. >>>> Which explains the human discovery and conception of the number. >>> Number and the conception of number are the same thing. >> With mechanism, the numbers, or the combinators (etc.) are taken as >> primitive. >> >> The conception of number is then explained by the mental abilities of the >> universal Turing machine/numbers. >> >> The numbers is the object of study of elementary arithmetic. >> >> The conception of numbers is the object of study of anthropology and or >> computer science. >> >> >> >>> That's why it's an abstract concept. There could be no number 2 without >>> the concept of two things being similar and so in the same class. Without >>> this conceptual relation, s() would just be marks on paper. >> >> Then physics before the human appeared cannot make sense. > > Category error.
Sorry if unclear, but the context indicates that I was talking about the physical reality. If 2 does not makes sense, "2 particles” does not make sense. > You equivocate on "physics". Physics, the theories of matter and energy, > would indeed not make sense. Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today considered as real before us. > But "physics" the subject of the theories would still exist. What would still exist? > "To make sense" is a relational property of the two. I agree with this, but I take 2+2=4 as more “true independently of me and you” than anything extrapolated from a finite numbers of observations, and still less when this is reified (ontologically), as there has no evidences for this, and evidences to the contrary. Bruno > > Brent > >> How could the Big-Bang even exists, if two electrons cannot exist without >> humans? >> >> 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f5ed747a-7acd-5994-30d6-e4bfdbab538c%40verizon.net. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DAA35B12-A85F-4CBD-9514-E048DE48B972%40ulb.ac.be.
