the more I read here on the "Church thesis" the less I know about it.
Is there a short description in 'non-technical' words about the 'essence'
you hold instrumental in the applications you apply?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> > 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
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at