Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 27-oct.-06, à 15:58, 1Z a écrit :
> > If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality
> > (ITSIAR).
> You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real
> does not entails
> that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define "real" by "physical
I didn't say numbers are not PHYSICALLY real,
I said "real at all".
> The question you should ask is: "are number sufficiently real to
> explain why some of them believes in a physical reality".
That is the question I DID ask.
> My answer,
> which I agree need some amount of work to get through, is "yes".
> "Existing" in the standard mathematical meaning of existence
There is no standard sense. There is more than one
ontology of mathematics. Of course you
might claim that most mathematicians are
Platonists. Fine, then you are assuming
Plaotonism, and not just computationalism.
> is enough
> to explain why a "stable and lawful "illusion" of physical reality"
> exists, again in that mathematical sense. Recall that the UDA explains
> why, assuming comp, a turing machine
if it exists, somehow, somewhere
> cannot distinguish the
> "physical", virtual and "arithmetical" aspect of any reality.
> Perhaps one day we will find a way to make those distinction. My work
> proposes a transparently clear way to observe that distinction if it
> exists, but then that would be a refutation of (standard) comp.
> >>> Alternatively, such a hypothesis may be shown to be redundant or
> >>> incoherent.
> >> Not really. It is SWE which should be made redundant.
> >>> Peter, as we've agreed, materialism is also metaphysics, and as a
> >>> route
> >>> to 'ultimate reality' via a physics of observables, is vulnerable to
> >>> 'reification'. Might it not be premature to finalise precisely what
> >>> it
> >>> is that physical theory decribes that might actually be RITSIAR?
> > I have answered these questions before: but
> > 1. Contingent existence.
> > 2. The ability to causally interact
> > 3. A primary substance which endures through change ( explaining
> > dynamic, non-BU time)
> > 4. Optionally, the ability to explain phenomenal consiousness in a
> > basically non-mathematical way.(Property dualism)
> The AUDA hypostases explains this, including 4. Wait a bit perhaps, or
> read my papers.
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