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