## Advertising

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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---