IZ wrote:
It's widely agreed on...."<

In my oppinion scientific argumentation is not a democratic vote. Scientists 
overwhelmingly agreed in the Flat Earth. THEN: science changed and the general 
vote went for heliocentrism.

IZ continued:

>"... Otherwise there would (b)e problems about the
existence of those platonic objects which can only be
defined with certain, disputable axioms, such as the AoC."<

Axioms in my wording are fictions necessary to prove OUR theory. (They may be 
true?) (What is AoC?)

IZ also refers to Brent's 'continua'. In my nat. sci. views a discontinuum is 
an abrupt change in CERTAIN data. Can be a 'is' or 'is not', but could be only 
an aspect in which WE find an abrupt change, while in other aspects there is 
continuum. Now 'what we call it' (abrupt or slow - even monotonous change) is 
scale-dependent, depends on the magnitude of our applied measuring system. 
Measure it in parsecs, all our terrestrial items are homogenous. Measure in 
nanometers, a 'glass' is a heterogenous system. I find the 'Planck' measure 
just a domain in human (physical?) aspects, not providing a bottom-size for 
nature. (I.e. for Our thinking only. )

 As I explained the origination of the biochemicals certain (outside?) factors 
in the material 'mass' ('mess?) disproportionated certain components into 
diverse (localised) agglomerations and a concentration potential- difference 
arose between certain domains. Such "potential gradients" (in the still 
homogenous = continuous mass) acted as transport-barriers, turned into 
hypothetical (and later: veritable) 'membranes' for a discontinuum. From the 
material-transport view the same substrate became discontinuous. (Hence: 
cell-walls etc.) 
Otherwise it was considerable as a homogenous (continuous?) biomass.

Similar 'domain'related' arguments can work in "human consciousness as 
originated from (Platonic?) math (numbers) - or vice versa. 
I appreciate Bruno's inadvertent "if we accept UD/comp" etc.etc. formula. Hard 
to beat, especially since so far there is NO successfully applicable (not even 
a dreamed-up) alternative developed sufficiently into a hopeful replacement for 
the many millennia evolved 'physical view' of our reductionist conventional 
Even the new ways start from there if not in veritable sci-fi.

John M

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 1Z 
  To: Everything List 
  Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:57 PM
  Subject: Re: Speaking about "Mathematicalism"

  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
  > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/750 - Release Date: 4/6/2007 
9:30 PM

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to