Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
> > Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL....
> I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain
why you don't argue against it.
> Your longer
> "metaphysics" post begs many of the questions addressed in this list.
> Personally: I have no theory, just an argument showing that if we take
> the "yes doctor" seriously enough then there is no primitive physical
> objects AT ALL(**), and then I show how to recover constructively the
> stable appearances of physical objects, and this in a precise
> empirically verifiable way(*).
> (And to be sure, I have always expected to get a refutation, but
> instead the theory has been confirmed until now. Of course QM, loop
> gravity and string theories are still in advance for the physical stuff
> but (a)comp is in advance for the explanation of the quanta-qualia
> relations, (and more generally the relation between all point of views
> (n-persons, hypostases) I would say).
> (*) This makes me an empirist, but I do not subscribe to "math is
> physics" form of empiry. It belongs more on the type "physics" is
> mathematics as seen from some internal observer-universal machine.
> (**) More precisely: such a notion of primitive physical objects can no
> more be invoked for justifying the appearances of physical laws.
Just as I have an argument that Platonically existing mathematical
objects are not needed to explain mathematics or anything else.
> BTW (a minor detail) rational numbers are also dense, but are
> constructive objects. Cf your long post.
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