Sandro, Yes, I'm quite aware of that. In addition, many a physicist has wondered why certain symmetries seem to be prevalent in the fabric of space(-time). However, personally, I think that such thoughts are neither useful nor plausible. Though we can discuss philosophically whether some parts of math is embedded in our universe as a real thing, everyone would agree that it is quite obscure and abstract, if one were to put a scale of concreteness versus abstractness. Thus, if the conjecture that Mathematics is entirely abstract may be false, it certainly will not be too far from the truth.
Either way, I think my point came across. For BitC, I believe that one needs keen dogmatic and practical guidelines in order to progress. We can't solve all mathematical, philosophical and type-theoretic problems on this mailing list. Instead we should focus on sensible and well-defined sub-problems, and solve those as we go. Thanks, PKE -----Original Message----- From: bitc-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sandro Magi Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 7:59 AM To: Discussions about the BitC language Subject: Re: [bitc-dev] Not everything is a type That's a more controversial statement than you might think. Many studying the philosophy of mathematics would disagree with you in fact. Platonism is a far less problematic foundation. But let's not get off topic for this list. Sandro On 03/04/2015 3:15 PM, Pal Engstad wrote: > Nothing in Mathematics is real. It exists only in our heads. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
