On 4 Sep, 22:12, 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.

There is no usual sense of "exists" as the material I posted
demonstrates.

You have to be assuming that the existence of the UD is literal
and Platonic  since you care concluding that I am beign generated by
it and
my existeince is not merely metaphorical. The arguemnt doesn't go
through
otherwise.

> 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.

IF formalism is true  there is no UD. It simply doesn't exist
and doesn't genarate anything.

>And you don't need
> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.

Of course I need a real machine for a real interview.

> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp.

Mathematical existence is metaphorical if mathematical existence is
literal.

Their existence is literal  if mathematical existence is metaphorical.

> 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.

False. There is nothing hypothetical about ingeous rock.

> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to