Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 23-oct.-06, à 14:29, 1Z a écrit :
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Le 20-oct.-06, à 17:04, 1Z a écrit :
> >>> As usual, the truth of a mathematical existence-claim does not
> >>> prove Platonism.
> >> By Platonism, or better "arithmetical realism" I just mean the belief
> >> by many mathematician in the non constructive proof of "OR"
> >> statements.
> > So where is the UD running? If Platonia doesn't exist,
> > how can I be in it?
> You miss the point. For asserting that the UD exists, I don't even
> need to use the non-constructive OR. The UD exists for an intuitionist
> as well.
> ("exists" in the same sense that it exists a number which is not the
> sum of three squares (x = 7 for example).
That doesn't answer the question. I am not saying mathematical
statements asserting the mathemtical existence of a UD, or
the number 7, are false. I am asking what mathematical existence
means. Where do mathematical objects exist? In the physical
world? In Platonia? In mathematicians minds? Nowhere?
> I think that in many of your last posts you are begging the point. You
> seem to assume the existence of a physical universe, then you define
> "existence" by existing in the physical universe.
No, I am just asking. I have even
come up with formulations like "real in the sense
that I am real" which avoid begging any questions about what
kind of reality I have.
>I don't assume a
> physical universe. I define existence by the arithmetical truth of
But for anti-Platonists the truth of mathematical statements
has no existential consequences.
> Then I explain in all (technical thus) details
> why immaterial machines/numbers come to feel, perceive, know, believe
> in sharable quanta and unsharable qualia.
Assuming immaterial machines exist.
> You say somewhere that we see matter. I think that this is the main
> difference between you and me, and I would say between Aristotle and
> Plato: Aristotle (like St-Thomas) argues indeed in his metaphysics that
> what we see and measure is what really exist (so that we can sleep in
> peace). Plato and actually most (rational) mystics (from Pythagorus to
> St-Augustin) try to explain that what we see could as well be only the
> shadows of the shadows of the shadows of the shadows ... of what
> perhaps is (so that we have to keep our vigilance and our skepticism or
> our doubting abilities in front of *all* theories (especially including
> those who could have been built in by long evolutionary processes).
Matter can only be a shadow of something that exists.
> All what I say is that (standard) computationalism is epistemologically
> incompatible with materialism. It *is* a necessary-redundancy argument:
> even if matter exists, standard comp makes it impossible to use for
> justifying any stable belief.
But that isn't true. Matter can only be made redundant by some
form of immaterial existence. However immaterial existence,
is *not* implied by *standard* computationalism.
Claims that computationalism necessitates the
truth of mathematical existence claims does not
prove immaterial existence, unless you can
refute the anti-Platonists argument that mathematical
"existence" is non-existence ontologically.
> That is the conclusion of the UDA.
The UDA has to assume the existence of
a UD, and that is not given by standard
computationalism. It is given by Platonism.
> AUDA makes it constructive and can generate the physical laws
> completely (making comp or acomp 100% scientific (popper-testable).
> It remain possible that the translation of UDA in arithmetic is to
> rough, and that is why I say "comp or acomp". But until now, empirical
> physics seems to confirm all the "weird" prediction of (a)comp.
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