Georges Quénot wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 consisting 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
