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).
> Bruno
> (*) 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to