Date: Jul 31, 2013 2:15 AM
Author: albrecht
Subject: Re: Matheology § 300

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:44:15 AM UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> In article <2d6b5b1d-e4da-4eb2-9ee1-3950f14c115b@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Albrecht <albstorz> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Monday, July 29, 2013 8:38:52 PM UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
>
> > > In article <6089cf7f-33ec-4650-9554-c8fdd3173b97@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > Albrecht <albstorz> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >> My point is, that the naturals are the root of math which anchor the
>
> > >> abstract
>
> > >> conception to our real world.
>
> >
>
> > > NOT to anyone familiar with geometry.
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Geometry? Show me one straight line, one circle, one triangle, ... in our
>
> > (hopefully common) reality.
>
>
>
> Show me in our common reality any natural number.
>
> You may be able to name them but you can no more show me one of them
>
> than I can show you "one straight line, one circle, one triangle".
>
>
>
> But I can draw pictures of "straight lines, circle , and triangles"
>
> which you cannot do of natural numbers.
>
> --


If you are able to distinguish between e.g. a table with four legs, three legs, two legs, one leg, and you are able to observe the different "behavior" of this different tables, you may have observed the consequences of numbers in the real world.
There are much more things in the nature which we can only observe by observing their consequences. But they are there nonetheless.

And but surely can I draw pictures of natural numbers. You can't?


* * * * * *

°^°^°^°

@
@
@
@

-___--___---___----...

...


.
.
.
.
.

. . . .


...