Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

From: Stephen Paul King <>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:35:34 -0400

Hi Tom,

    Your post has inspired a thought for me that I have been struggling for years to generate! Where is Intensionality instantiated in Arithmetic Realism, or any form of Platonism? To re-phrase in folk-speak: How is "to whom-ness" present in a number?

    I find in the idea that "refers to the set of all possible things which a word could describe.", thus intensionality for a number would be the set (???) of all possible other numbers that it could encode, which has a nice algorithmic flavor; but let's go to extensionality: "extension (or denotation) refers to the set of all actual things which the word actually describes".

    How do numbers *distinguish* (if I am permitted to use that word) between *possibility* and *actuality*? Is the "bush" what Bruno is "beating around"?



----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE


I don't know from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or
But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can on this), I think
I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction between mathematical and
linguistic paradox. The meaning of the symbols is defined at a higher
level than the encoding itself. Your statement turns on the word
"chosen", which is a verb. This goes back to my other post in this
thread that, in order to keep from going into an infinite regress of
meaninglessness, defining meaning ultimately requires a person.


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 Mon Apr 03 2006 - 22:36:37 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST