Thanks, Quentin. It seems AoC is not contrary to the line I represented. * To your other post: I did not feel any pejorating in Peter's "Brunoism". Bruno is appreciated with his "23rd c". views. (He joked about it, calling the list as 100 years ahead, himself 200). I have only ONE (logic?) objection: we all 'think ' with our 21th c. brains and 'organize' nature (existence, world, origins, etc.) - i.e. a sort of 'prescription for nature, how it *ever* 'should be' built - accordingly. It is different from the 'turtle', Kronos', 'Indra's', the 'Big Manitou's', even the 'Big Bang's' follies at different levels of our actual epistemic developmental stages. So is even the 23rd c. Brunoism in 21st c. math logic. My precise prescription is: - We don't know, we can speculate. - Speculation is good, I do it, but I beware of drawing to long consecutive series upon its ASSUMED circumstances and warn others to regard them as 'facts' especially in the nth level of lit. repetitions (by calling it my 'narrative' to begin with).
Whether 'numbers' originated the conscious mind or vice versa, (even if Bruno restricts this idea to the natural integers, for the sake of simplicity), whether those unidentified numbers have any force-activity to construct anything, or is it something else still undiscovered today, generating even the numbers (math) in OUR thinking, (substituted by an unknowable "god" concept in many minds), is MY open question. The 'mind-body' thesis is no good answer, because mind is unidentified and body is not a primary concept (mostly assumed as 'material', in the 'physical' figment of our explanatory sequence in learning about the world). My ramblings conclude into: it all may be right (in conditional). My criticism aims at triggering (teasing?) better arguments. So are my questions. Best regards John M ----- Original Message ----- From: Quentin Anciaux To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Speaking about "Mathematicalism" Hello, While Peter did not answer your question about AoC... AoC means, I think, Axiom of Choice see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice . The correct "sigle" (in french this is the word, don't know the correct term in english) is AC. Regards, Quentin On Sunday 08 April 2007 00:47:41 John M 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... > > 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 science. 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 > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/752 - Release Date: 4/8/2007 8:34 PM --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---