On Aug 29, 4:20 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for spelling it out.

> > (1) Mathematical concepts are indispensible to our explanations of
> > reality.
> So are grammatical concepts.

No they aren't.  Grammatical concepts are human creations, which is
precisely shown by the fact that they *can* be dispensed with and
replaced with scientific concepts which give a more accurate
description of reality.

> What does it mean for a concept to be real?  I don't find the argument from 
> indispenability convincing.  It's like saying because we don't know how to 
> describe something without words, the words are real things.  

Not really. According Deutsch's 'Critera For Reality' (ref: 'The
Fabric Of Reality', David Deutsch) , an application of occam's razor
says that something should be considered to 'objectively exist' if
taking the concept out of our theory made the explanation more complex
or impossible.  (ie the concept can't be dispensed with without
complications).  Grammer doesn't match the criteria.  Math does.  It's
easy to cut out English concepts say, and replace them with other
modes of descriptions.  I don't see scientists labriously trying
refactor all their mathematical explanations to refer only to material
observables.  It's not even possible.  And that's why mathematical
concepts should be taken to be objectively real.

> >And patterns cannot be
> > objectively measured in the way that specific physical properties can
> > (See Ray Kurweil 'The Singularity Is Near' for agreement of this).
> Appeal to authority?

No, a reference to a more detailed explanation of the point (so I
don't have to laboriously type the argument here).

> I don't think anyone ever doubted that subjective experiences are processes - 
> and in that sense non-material.  But that doesn't show that they can exist 
> apart from the material.  Or that the existence and evolution of the process 
> cannot be elucidated by purely material descriptions.  I could as well 
> observe that all patterns of any kind are instantiated in material.
> Brent Meeker

 Indeed all scientific evidence indicates that subjective experiences
are  entirely dependent on the material.  Be careful to respond only
to what I actually said rather than what you thought I said.

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 

Reply via email to