From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 13:55:42 MST
Mitch writes
> I am guessing that set theory is the result of human neural integration and such organic features as opposable thumbs, hand eye
coordination, the discovery and implementation of fire, and a host of other occurrences due to evolution.
<
Well, we mathematical platonists believe that on the contrary
it is an objective feature of the universe, and of almost any
universe of which we are able to conceive. The signature:
any evolved thinking apparatus whatsoever within ten billion
light years will notice the same feature.
> Set theory may be recognized as something discernible in nature, but it takes a human brain to view this, Squirrels, Lowland
Gorillas, Toucans, and Angelfish have no concept of set theory. Up until now it takes a specialized mammal, called human, to see
this.
<
Yes, but that's only a reflection of the limited capabilities of
those other animals.
> If the human brain didn't function as it does, there is no set theory. Unless some other intelligent specie evolves, some
sophisticated computer A.I.; really set theory doesn't seem to exist.
<
How could the existence of something depend on the evolution
of beings capable of recognizing it? Okay, if you are right
then pretty close to the big bang it did not exist. Then at
some point an evolved intelligence finally recognized it.
Did its existence *suddenly* spring up throughout the universe
at that instant? Or did it only propagate at the speed of
light from the insipient source?
> Question? Do you hold math as a sacrosanct, non-material,
> part of the cosmos, even though it appears as a development
> of biological and cultural actions?
Yes. A remote island on the horizon "appears only as a
development" in the visual structure of those with eyes
to see in just the same way.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:37 MST