Georges Quénot wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> Georges Quenot wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> Well... I am not sure I should insist. I do not want to
> force you to believe or consider something you are not
> willing to believe or consider.
> The question is not whether they are real things or not.
> It is whether they are things or not.
They are not. The King of France is not a person.
> Once they are things,
> you have to decide how many types of things there must be.
> You might well feel otherwise but, for me, *they are not
> Just tell me: do you consider "natural numbers" as something,
> as nothing, as "something" that would neither be something
> nor nothing, or as "anything else" (please explain)?
I consider them as concepts , as the intentional
objects of neural activity. Of course intentional
objects are not real things -- things are not brought into existence
by thinking about them.
> answer without considering whether they are "real" or not,
> just whether thet are something, nothing, ... *Then* we can
> discuss *which type of* "thing" (or whatever) they might be.
> > There is only
> > one kind of existing thing, ie real, physical things.
> You should clarify: do you mean existing, real or physical?
> Which is which and on which ground which is a specific of
> (or identical to) which? How do you define any of them?
It think they all mean the same as each other, i.e. causally connected
> >> It postulates "material substance"
> > yes, but only material substance. Hence it is monism, not dualism.
> No, this is "material substance" besides "abstract objetcs".
Not if abstract "objects" do not really exist at all.
> You do split things between "material" and "immaterial".
I do not split existing things.
> >> just as classical dualism
> >> postulates a "spiritual substance"
> > as well as a material substance.
> Yes and you do oppose material (real) things to immaterial
> (abstract) ones.
I oppose existence to non-existence. However, existence
is not sub-divided into two realms.
> >> (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.
> Not everyone believe that and that is not a joke. But the
> main point is that not everybody gives the same meaning to
> "real". I guarantee you that there are people (including
> me) that do not feel things as you do in this matters (not
> to say that something must be wrong either way, only that
> several distinct and incompatible views actually coexist).
Even people who think numbers are real do not think
they are real in the same sense as their breakfast.
> >>>> 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.
> This might be more complicated. Looking at "them"
> can significantly change them.
They are still causally conneceted to me, and I to them
>They might also be an
Why ? Why should two-way causality imply anstractness ?
> They can hardly be "objects" in the common
> sense of the word.
Why ? all you are saying is that they kick back.
> >> 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.
> Don't be so impatient. Mankind has been awaiting for
> thousands of years an account of how living beings can
> have appeared in an inert world and though the account
> is now about a century and a half old it still did not
> make it to a significant portion of mankind (if not
> the majority).
Switching to a maths-only ontology does not necessarily make that any
> I am also awaiting for a physical-monist account of how
> consciousness can arise in living beings. This might
> take a few centuries to come. What is astounding is that
> it could emerge just through matter activity. Going from
> matter to consciousness is the hardest part for me. Once
> given, going from mathematics to physics is a fascinating
> idea but it does not make more or less mysterious the
> emergence of consciousness.
IMO the difficulties about consciousness arise from the subjectivty
or qualia, which arises from the icommunciability of qualia, which is
really the incommunicability of qualia **in mathematical terms**.
Admitting that there a basically non-mathematical elements in
nature allows us to identify qualia with those aspects, and gets us
off the hook of explaining them mathematically.
> Causality and time in a physical-monist view do not appear
> so mysterious to me.
So you understand causality and time ?
> It does not appear more mysterious
> in a mathematical-monist view.
But everybody thinks of the mathemaical realm as timeless!
> I once suggested that
> what could make our universe special and "exist more"
> than others is that it can be *chosen* among a set of
> universe following the same set of rules by adding one
> specific rule that would specify that the block universe
> (ie seen as a spatiotemporal object) is the one which
> is as "more ordered on one (temporal) side than on the
> other" as possible.
So there are arbitrary axioms in this mathematical world-view ?
And speaking of a block-universe is not explaining time ,
it is denying it !
> This is all we need to explain
> causality and time (and this is my fifth speculation).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at