Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Georges Quenot wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>> Georges wrote:
> >>>>> - The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
> >>>> This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
> >>>> object.
> >>>> Otherwise it is nonsense.
> >>> No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
> >>> exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only
> >>> isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed
> >>> to the other mathematical objects which are only abstract.
> >> That is the question.
> >> That "[The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
> >> other mathematical objects which are only abstract." is what
> >> I called a dualist view.
> > Dualism says there are two really existing realms or substances.
> > Saying the physical realm is concrete and real and the mathematical
> > realm is abstract and unreal is not dualism.
> This *splits* "things" into "realness" and "abstractedness".
No abstract "objects" aren't real things at all. There is only
one kind of existing thing, ie real, physical things.
> It postulates "material substance"
yes, but only material substance. Hence it is monism, not dualism.
> just as classical dualism
> postulates a "spiritual substance"
as well as a material substance.
> (and just as once vitalism
> postulated a "living substance").
> Last but not least: you are unable to explain what you mean
> bt "real" except by a tautology or via a reference to common
> sense that no longer appears to be consensual.
I am not sure what you mean by "non-consensual". Everyone believes
that sticks and stones and what they had for breakfast are real.
> >> Both view seem to have their champions here. I guesse that
> >> when saying "This has to be saying simply that the multiverse
> >> IS a mathematical object." Tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) defends
> >> the monist view as obvious and the only one making sense while
> >> when saying "[The universe] has real existence, as opposed
> >> to the other mathematical objects which are only abstract."
> > Well, I've never seen a mathematical object. Have you
> > ever seen the number 3?
> Have you ever seen a single photon? Or even an electron?
They can be detected by apropriate instrumentation.
> Do you descend from the ape by your father or by your mother?
> You may find the monist idea crazy or a nonsense but it does
> not (completely) appear as such to everybody.
The Devil is in the details. I await mathematical-monist accounts of
consciousness, causality and time.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at