On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
>> What is your definition of "mathematicalism" here?
> Strong definition:  the big "everything" is a mathematical object.
> (But perhaps this is asking too much. The whole of math is already not
> a mathematical object). So:
> Weak definition: every thing is mathematical, except everything!

Ok. Do you know of anyone else who uses the term in that way? I don't  
even find it in Tegmark's papers. As I said, it only gets a handful of  
hits on Google, and they're basically all us.

I don't like "cognitive immaterialism" (or anything with  
"immaterialism"), because it implies that I don't believe in matter. I  
guess you could say that I don't, but it's closer to the truth to say  
that I think that mathematical facts simply *are* what materialists  
(gropingly, confusedly) call physical matter. It would be like me, as  
an opponent of vitalism, calling myself an "a-lifer". It's not that I  
don't believe in life. I just that I think that molecules, bits,  
patterns, whatever, are the things that play the role that the  
vitalists have (gropingly, confusedly) called the "life-force".

I like "Mathematical Physicalism", if it's possible for me to keep  
that term distinct from your "mathematicalism".

-- Kory

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