Georges Quénot wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
> >>> mathematical,
> >> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
> >> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
> >> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
> >> adopt it either.
> >>
> >> But can you make a difference between adopting it and
> >> being able to consider that it might make sense (whether
> >> it is true or not) and conduct (or follow) reflections
> >> in a context in which it would be conjectured as true?
> >
> > I don't think Mathematical Monism makes sense
> OK. Just consider that it does make sense to some people.
> > (to be precise it
> > is either incoherent, in asserting that only some mathematical
> > objects exist, or inconsistent with observation in asserting that
> > they all do)..
> I do not see how it can be inconsistent with observation.

If every mathematical structure exists , then mathematical structures
of a counterpart of me plus a "Harry Potter" universe exist. Yet this
is not
observed. Of course that might be coincidence.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to