Dear Koichiro,
On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:02, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e.,
testable
mathematical predictions.
[KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone.
There is
no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present
accessible in the
present tense.
I am glad to hear that. Not all mathematicians would agree, but all
would agree that this statement is true for what Brouwer called once
"the separable part of mathematics", which is very first order
elementary arithmetic without induction.
With induction, we have problem with the "ultra-intuitionist", who
tend to disbelieve in the everywhere definiteness of the exponential
function. Those are very rare, but some are very good mathematiciian
and are followed rather closely (like when Nelson claimed to have a
proof of the inconsistency of Peano Arithmetic, this has been
thoroughly investigated until an error was shown, as Nelson admitted:
but he seems to still believe that PA is inconsistent).
Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including
biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the
present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings.
I am not sure of this. "we" the humans are certainly "historical
beings", but as de Chardin put it, we might be spiritual being living
the human experiences, among others. Time might be an indexical, like
with Mechanism in cognitive science, or like in General Relativity.
That
must look quite uneasy to mathematicians.
Most mathematicians just don't do neither physics, nor psychology,
still less theology or metaphysics. They hide their motivation, and
they often forget the motivations of those who brought the tools and
results they like to develop. Very few logicians seem to be aware that
the rise of mathematical logic started from a dispute between
unitarian and trinitarian, and the will to make (non-confessional)
theology more rigorously (Benjamin Peirce (the father of Charles.S.
Peirce), de Morgan, Boole, even Lewis Carroll ...).
One loophole for making it
tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the
mathematical
notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the
finished
record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the
present.
Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what
could be
persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense,
though
somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete
particulars.
Some people argue that a truth like 2+2=4 is eternal, and true
everywhere. But this does not make sense, as the temporal and locality
attribute pertain on physical object. At best we might say that 2+2=4
is out of time and place. Such truth is out of the category of things
to which time and place/position does not applied. It makes no sense
to ask "since when 2 is even?", except poetically or in some
colloquial manner.
Now, this does not mean that in the context of *some* metaphysical
theory/assumption, some possible links between the physical reality
and the mathematical (or arithmetical) reality cannot be derived. I
have shown, in particular, that if a brain is Turing emulable, then we
have to explain the physical appearances, including time and space, as
emerging in the form of stable first person plural discourse from a
statistic on all computations (which are realized in all
interpretations of tiny fragment of Arithmetic, when we assume/accept
the Church-Turing thesis). That is testable, and it works up to now,
as we recover an intuitionist subject for the "soul/knower", and a
quantum logic for the "observable/predictable".
Best Regards,
Bruno
Koichiro Matsuno
-----Original Message-----
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math!
Dear FISers,
My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable
journals,
for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific
reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions.
Sent from Libero Mobile
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
