peterdjones wrote:
> Georges Quenot wrote:
>> peterdjones wrote:
>>  > Georges Quenot wrote:
>>  >> peterdjones wrote:
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> "Epistemic objectivity of maths" means "every competent mathematician
>>  >>> gets the same answer to a given problem". It doesn't say anything about
>>  >>> the existence of anything (except possibly mathematicians).
>>  >> Well, if "every competent mathematician gets the same answer
>>  >> to a given problem", "competent mathematicians" do not have
>>  >> much freedom about what they might find as an answer to some
>>  >> given problems. So there must "exist" "something" that
>>  >> "constrain" them.
>>  >
>>  > Yes: rules, the principle of non-contradiction.
>>
>> So. These exist for you too? Are they physical objects?

These were two separate questions.

> I don't need to hold that they have any existence separate
> from mathematicians or textbooks.

This is a response to none of them.

It seems to me that "they" do constrain mathematicians but
they do not come from them, neither are part of them and are
even less part of textbooks.

>> [...]
>> This is a question of viewpoint. I would rather say that more
>> than Tegmark's hypothesis is needed for *something else* (or
>> something more) than MM.
> 
> Tegmark's hypothesis is explcitly a claim of isomorphism.
> MM is a claim of identity.  Isomorphims *can* be identity....

Yes.

> but to show that one *is*, something more is required.

Well. You may see things that way. One (and Okham's razor)
could say sa well: "but to show that one *is not*, something
more is required".

Georges.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to