Re: [-empyre-] the symbolic and the real

[Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net>]

The Voices in my Head tell me that on 10/9/03 6:10 PM, Alan Sondheim at
sondheim@panix.com wrote:

> 
> I think, however, that ontologically, Saul is correct. One doesn't
> 'escape' the mathematical universe; in fact an infinite axiomatic set
> would do, but would be messy as hell.

Worse. It would lead to tautology (infinite sets are always the same size),
contradiction (infinity is where the impossible can happen), and not explain
much of anything (a system that explains everything is complete, and
complete systems have big problems, ref. Goedel).

> Mathesis remains within mathesis -
> although I have a sneaking suspicion that mathesis and the physical real
> are intimately connected.

That is something I've been wondering a lot lately, and I'm really of
several opinions about it all. The strong argument of that connexion would
be the platonic argument. I have a lot of problems with that position, but
it does have its attractions. I was re-reading Dehaenes book on the Number
Sense, and the physically real seems countable (hence numbers are real).
Because they are real, addition and subtraction are good to go. By extension
multiplication would work, but I'm not so sure about division (infinitely
regressive decimals get in the way...) In anycase, it seems that anything
higher than that is just the brain's language function getting involved with
numeracy. The two share some things, but they are very distinctive and
different neurological activities.

At the same time, I think the idea that math is a human creation makes a lot
of sense, but then we would have to cut numeracy off from math, as it is
quite evident that many animals have a number sense.

> In any case, I think the issue is still more or less true as given.

which issue?

> Finally, and this plays directly into vr issues, where are _we_? What
> worlds are 'normally' ours?

Sitting in front of my computer. My view is distinctly monistic, so I don't
see different "worlds". There is what we do, and how we do it. "Different
worlds" are an illusion that I don't agree with or buy into.

I'm terrifying at movies - I know how they are made, and I know the editing
tricks, so they don't surprise me, usually. And I dislike fiction.

> Some books that I've found useful by the way - Drew Leder, The Absent
> Body, and the works of Rom Harre and Alphonso Lingis.

I'll look them up. Thanks!