Le 09-mai-07, à 06:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :


> It's true that consistency/precise alone doesn't imply
> existence, but they are factors that one can take into account.
>


OK. But consistency of a mathematical theory having sufficiently rich 
models so that they support self-observing entities could be enough for 
a notion of relative existence. I think physical existence is always of 
that type, making it an indexical.

I disagree with those who think that any mathematical structure is a 
"physical object". This is, imho, a category mistake. On the contrary 
"physical existence" seems to be (with comp) an "inside" internal" 
first person (plural) sum on a distinguished set of relatively defined 
mathematical structures.

I will say more in a general sum up I intend to send (including the non 
technical account of the why and how of the L interview.

Bruno


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


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to