On 7 Apr, 18:47, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IZ wrote:
> >"...arithmetic?
> 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.
> THEN...

What makes mathematics true is not the point. Bruno is claiming that
numbers exist, and to make
his claim persuasive he focusses on the least contentious numbers.

> 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?)

Then numbers don't exist, they are fictions too.

> 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 science.
> Even the new ways start from there if not in veritable sci-fi.

Brunoism relies on Platonism as well as computationalism.
Computationalism can be as true as tue can be, but so long as
Platonism is false, so long as a computer needs a physical instantion,
Brunoism does not follow.  Brunoism doesn't follow from physicalism,
it is in oppostion to it.

> 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.

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