Hume is famous for a reason. (My own view, however, is probably more in line with Kant's reply to Hume.) But this also fits well with the modern "scientific" approach to human understanding. By this I mean that what we think is a product of the brain which is a physical object that works by some set of rules like a computer (but probably a completely different set of rules.) The rules may lead to incredibly complex behavior, but this no different from anything else in nature.
All I'm saying is that we have had great success modeling nature with math, e.g., pi, e, etc. appear in our representations of the laws of nature. The actual philosophical status of numbers is interesting but irrelevant. We have used them very successfully to model the world, they exist in our thinking, and can affect our thinking. Whether or not they exist in nature is another question. You know, I swore I would not get involved in this discussion. I even avoided several threads with different names. It kept appearing in a different guise, however, and finally caught me. I do have this great picture of me with the statue of Hume in Edinburgh. Maybe I'll change me PDML portrait . . .;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
