Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:27:44 -0500

GŁnther, *please see inserted in "JM:" lines*

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, GŁnther Greindl <
> wrote:

> John,
> my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
> two books could give you the central idea:
> Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
> which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations
> (materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out).

JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind
capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing
against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers"<G>)

> The next step then is to realize that modern physics gives us only
> relational knowledge of the world

JM: (misunderstood) conclusions upon (m..) conclusions ((figments)) based on
millennia of '(mis)observations' and their explanations within the simplex
and ever enriching epistemic cognitive inventory level (still growing) -
always keeping the prior art and amend after amendment and so on. The
'physical world' is - as a 'whole' - an [axiomatic?] misconception needed to
maintain the theoretical tenets of (conventional) sciences.

> Ladyman Et Al. Every thing must go.
> (for an excellent overview and discussion), and that matter is indeed
> not "needed" (this was the crossing point into number-reality for me,
> not the Maudlin thought experiment, because I am somewhat skeptical of
> thought experiments (you never know if you've forgotten hidden
> assumptions etc)).

JM: I take it as 'thought experiments' to fabricate unreasonable
circumstances to prove (or at least facilitate) the hypothetical occurrence
of otherwise not realizable theoretical ideas. I would exclude them from the
scientific thinking. The EPR kicked physics - now 8 decades - into highly
mathematized sci-fi. Nobel prizes notwithstanding.

> Computatations (that's the transition to pure number) then give a more
> well defined picture than "all of mathematics", which gives no handle
> whatever on white rabbits etc.
> But then book one (Lakoff Et Al) fits again nicely into the bigger
> picture, explaining how certain structures can evolve to see numbers
> (one simply drops the materialist *tenor*).

JM: (pun!) I would drop the mathematicist *terror* as well. I have a problem
with "evolving" *structures *at all. Unless one 'believes' in *energy??? *that
has become somehow and is directed somehow into doing something. What??

> Best Wishes,
> GŁnther

JM: Respectfully

> John Mikes wrote:
> > GŁnther and Bruno,
> >
> > am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study
> > all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and
> > could even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the
> > next 30 or so years...
> >
> > Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS that young and did not start.
> > I was busy making 20+ more practical polymer related patents without
> > even thinking of the futility of "physical World" illusions. I just
> > lived (in it)/(them).
> >
> > I am happy in my scientific agnosticim and would love to read something
> > to bring me closer to the idea that 'numbers' consitute the world and
> > not "are the mental products of us, eventuel travellers in this (one)
> > universe."
> >
> > Bruno used the word 'axiomatic', in my vocabulary an axiom is an
> > unjustifiable belief (illusion?) necessary to maintain the validity of a
> > theory - in this case the 'physical world'. Like: 2 + 2 = 4 -
> >
> > Br:"> AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or
> > > recursively enumerable theories, of machine...."
> >
> > Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference? Or 'Self'
> > for that matter? 'Recursively' I agree with, it is 'within'. Machine
> > (limited capability) is 'us', so the 'enumerable theories' are OK.
> > With such handicap in my thinking it is hard to fully follow the flow of
> > the (A)UDA dicussions. I try.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > John M
> -----------------------

> GŁnther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> Blog:
> Thesis:

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 Sun Feb 08 2009 - 15:28:01 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST