Bruno, there is a lot of wisdom in your post. Your last sentence, however, may apply to that wisdom as well I am afraid.

## Advertising

"...I have to assume that [such] truth are not dependent of me,..." - nor on anything else we may know of. I stay clear of 'truth' which is applied in whoever's theory - as 'his' truth. I am in trouble with the "Church Thesis", it seems to be anchored in the *math of functions* and applied to *comp.science*. (BTW "recursive functions" pointing back to themselves? a restriction into what has been known (already)? I may have the wrong idea (if any) about the Ch-Th of course.) It may be 'fundamental' in - what I consider - a segment of the totality. I can accept the 'universal machine' as not restricted to mathematical comp, it definitely should not apply those binary-slanted algorithms. I consider it as some analogue 'think-tank' beyond our present terms. Whatever I would try to characterize it with, is MY restriction to its unlimited capabilites. So I don't. Bruno, is your own restriction concentrated to 'physics' with 'math' as in: ("All theories in physics use at least that arithmetical fragment....")? I love your extension of 'metaphors' (bosons) into galaxies and brains. They certainly are, included into our presently valid "perceived reality" of figments. "Scientists do not commit themselves ontologically...." Most - (especially the conventional ones) do. I find it a restriction of the total into the so far experienced portion - even to the *adjusted format of those* - serving as the 'entirety this 'ontology' is based on. I would love to device an ontology for the 'totality' - that would explain lots of questionmarks we still have in our ignorance (the how-s, why-s, and the other 1000 to be modest). I am not sure about the 'excluded middle' since that is excluded from a mere segment we consider 'them all' while the entire set may include quite another *middle*. (My usual objection against statistical conclusions and probabilities of course, that are mere illusions of our human ways of anticipatory thinking). I intended this reflection to be 'positive' to your ideas, as considered them in more ways than just 'arithmetically based' (numbers?). John On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote: > > > ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers > > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their > > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical > > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued > > backwards > > > > I have never said that numbers exists because there are true > mathematical statements asserting their existence. > > I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such > truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to > even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a > universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like with > the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists. > > I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are > part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic > way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not > depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save > your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA. And you don't need > really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine. > > All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But > fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp. May be very fertile > one. Like galaxies and brains. > > Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate > basic entities and relations in theories which are always > hypothetical. I am just honest making explicit my use of the non > constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm. > > You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I > 'm afraid. > > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---