How mathematical operations require the infinite: they don't require an explicit affirmation of the infinite any more than reasoning requires an explicit affirmation of the principle of non-contradiction. But they do require an openness to the applicability of the form of the operation to more numbers. And if numbers had a limit, X+1, where the operation would not work, then our knowledge about the form of the proposition would not be genuine knowledge. We wouldn't even be able to know how to apply the operation to known numbers IF we denied that it could apply to others. An openness to an unbounded applications is necessary in principle for us to be able to know what we do about numbers within the bounds that we have found them so far.
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments