On 3 Apr, 20:08, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That brings up an issue which has troubled me. Why arithmetic?
It's widely agreed on. Otherwise there would e problems about the
existence of those platonic objects which can only be
defined with certain, disputable axioms, such as the AoC.
> Mathematical physics commonly uses continua. Most speculate that this is an
> approximation to a more discrete structure at the Planck scale - but I don't
> believe there has ever been any rigorous proof that this kind of
> approximation can work.
> If we are to suppose that arithmetic "exists" because statements like "2+2=4"
> are true independent of the physical world, then it seems that calculus and
> analysis and geometry and topology should also "exist".
Tell that to an intuitionist!
> I initially thought the idea of using arithmetic as the foundational ur-stuff
> was attractive because I assumed that infinities could be avoided, i.e.
> allowing only "potential infinities" as in intuitionist mathematics. But it
> appears that diagonalization arguments are essential to Bruno's program and
> those require realized infinities.
> Brent Meeker
> > "we" are not *in* a mathematical structure, we are distributed in an
> > infinity of mathematical structures, and physicality emerges from the
> > interference of them.
> > Why a wavy interference? Open problem.
> > Bruno
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at