Donal writes: >>> We may say there was no number system on earth before humans invented one. This would not mean such a number system could not apply to what is 'out there'. Consider two number systems:- (a) '1, 2, 3, 5, more than 5'; and (b) '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, more than 10'. The farmer with exactly 8 cows using (a)can truthfully say he has 'more than 5' cows; and using (b) can truthfully say he has exactly 8 cows. Without the man-made invention of a number system he could say neither, but that does not mean the invention cannot be used to describe what is 'out there'. A farmer with 8 cows but no counting-system would still have 8 cows; this fact is true by virtue of what is 'out there' irrespective of whether he has the means to express or know this fact. A farmerless field with exactly 8 cows in it also has 8 cows in it - no more, no less - irrespective of whether humans or any other creature have a number system to say so. >>> There's a loophole in this reasoning. When Donal states that "A farmer with 8 cows but no counting-system would still have 8 cows; this fact is true by virtue of what is 'out there'", is not the reason why the farmer has 8 (not 7 or 9) cows that Donal states in the premise that he has that amount? The appropriate question is not whether the farmer has 8 cows due to it being so /out there/, but whether the 8 cows appear so /to the farmer/ (and not to some dislocated, ephemeral theorist outside the practice of farming). And in order to answer this question the farmer's reportoire of articulation is highly relevant. Best, Torgeir Fjeld Norway ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html