Re: Attempt toward a systematic description

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:33:49 -0700

Tom Caylor wrote:
> The above does not require physical reality, but only concepts that we
> can think about looking inward (eyes closed view). But even though it
> is "only" conceptual, my point is that we are taking a "leap of faith"
> even when we talk about 1+1=2, classifying an infinite number of cases
> into one equivalence class.
> Perhaps at the core of this issue is whether things like "+" are
> prescriptive or descriptive. Is it possible that there are universes
> with mathematical "white rabbits" such that when you take 1 thing and
> 1 other thing ("physical" or not) and associate them in any way,
> including just thinking about them, then you don't necessarily get 2
> things (e.g. sometime you get 1 or 3 or 0)?
> Tom

Good point. I think of 1+1=2 as a model. Sometimes, as in putting two apples in a bag, it fits. Other times, as in putting two drops of water in a cup, it can be reinterpreted to fit (in terms of volumes). Or, as in a gathering of the high school basketball team with 12 members in a room with the high school tennis team with 10 members, you may find that 10+12=15. So applying the model requires judgment about what counts and what "+" means.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 14:34:01 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST