On Feb 9, 4:35 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 09 Feb 2011, at 15:20, 1Z wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 6:08 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > Peter,
> >> you say that you are a formalist. I gave you the definition of
> >> realism
> >> which works for the understanding of the reasoning. It is the
> >> acceptation of (P v ~P) when P is intended on the domain of the
> >> natural numbers.
> > I can accept that as a *formal* rule that doens't mean anything
> > ontologically,
> > just like I can accept that some but not all Snarks are Boojums.
> Yes, please, do that.
I already am
> > You
> > cannot come
> > to ontological conclusions just by writing down an axiom.
> I don't do that. But I disagree with your point. here is a
> Theory: God and Mary ontologically exist.
> Conclusion: Mary ontologically exist.
Sigh...You cannot come to ontological conclusions just by writing down
a logical or mathematical axiom.
> > Worse, the
> > decision
> > to use the Law of the Exclude Middle or not (it can of course be
> > dropped without
> > incurring a contradiction) is typically motivated by ontological
> > considerations.
> > We think LEM applies to past events because we think they either
> > happened
> > or they didn't. We doubt that it applies to future events.
> I use LEM only in arithmetic.
Pure arithmetic cannot reach ontological conclusions
> >> That's all.
> >> By standard use of numbers I mean the element (N, +, *) as
> >> taught by mathematicians. I show that comp makes *some* theology as
> >> part of the discourse of machine. This should not give any trouble,
> >> *especially* to a formalist.
> > The idea that a hypothetical machine would give certain hypothetical
> > responses wouldn't, but of course, you are saying more than that:
> > you are saying that *I* am an immaterial machine. And that's an
> > ontological claim which cannot be supported by a merely formal
> > premise.
> It is not more ontological that the premise that I could survive with
> a digital brain.
What does "digital" mean here? Made of silicon.... or made of numbers?
There is a bait and switch going on here. The guy goes into the
agrees to the digital brain, and walks out thinking the doctor is
laboriously build a machine or write a programme. Instead, the doctor
sits back confident that a digital brain already exists as an
>The rest is reasoning. It is up to you to find the
> mistake, if you believe there is one. Please study the reasoning,
> because it makes clear what is used and meant in the hypotheses. The
> point is mainly "epistemological", although we might argue on this
> too. The point is that physics is a branch of arithmetic,
If there is no reality to numbers, arithmetic cannot even produce the
appearance of physics. Illusions have a real basis. Again, you need
an ontological premise.
>and that it
> can be extracted (formally) from computability theory + the self-
> reference logic (provability theory).
> >> A mathematical anti-realist is an ambiguous expression. How could
> >> them
> >> believe in Church thesis which is equivalent with the assertion
> >> that a
> >> universal number exist in arithmetic.
> > In the way that I have explained to you a thousand times: the
> > assertion
> > that certain entities exist is just taken as part of the game.
> No. You insist that there is primary matter.
Whether I do or not has no bearing on how formalists interpret
mathematical existence postulates.
> I am neutral on this. But
> I do show we don't need that hypothesis to undersatnd why the
> universal numbers develop beliefs and discourse on primary matters and
> physical laws.
We need the postulate that numbers exist, because non existing
things have existing beliefs.
> >> If it is formal game playing, just play the game.
> > If I just play the game I am never going to conclude that
> > I *am* a dreaming machine, any more than I am going to
> > conclude I am Supermario
> You forget the "yes doctor" part of comp, which plays a crucial role
> in the reasoning. I don't want to argue if it is ontological or not.
Well, you should.
> That is not needed to understand that physics is no more the
> fundamental science once comp is assumed
Comp alone does not do it.
> >> The theory is enough
> >> precise to allow that.
> >> Do you have a definition of formalism which does not rely on
> >> arithmetical realism.
> > Yes: formalism is the claim that no mathematical
> > entities actually exist,
> Well, that is you own physicalist definition. A general formalist
> believes the same for any theory, and never assume things like primary
> matter. You are not a formalist in math, but a conventionalist.
"Conventionalism: This is also called formalism. In Kantian terms this
is the view that mathematics is analytical a priori. In other words,
that all mathematical statements are true by definition or
> then I think you have missed the failure of formalism and logicism in
> math due to incompleteness.
Sigghh..no that's the failure of Hilbertian formalism, not of
> > that mathematics is just
> > the exploration of the consequences of various rules
> > and axioms, and that mathematical truth is contextual
> > to the system employed and has no wider significance.
> That has been refuted by Gödel a long time ago,
> and is not what
> mathematician call formalism, after Gödel.
> >> AR is the weakest assumption on which all
> >> mathematician agree (except ulrafinitist).
> > Formalists think it is true as well,,,but it is not a truth
> > about anything outside the game.
> Then stay in the game. Of course, if you ever say "yes" to the digital
> doctor, then the consequence are no more purely formal.
Is the doctor promissing me a brain made of silicon or of numbers?
> >> Could you define *formally* 'real existence'?
> > There is no reason I should, and at least one reason I shouldn't:
> > I have stated that real existence cannot be established by formal
> > arguments.
> Like non real existence. But then why do you keep insist that numbers
> and math object have non real existence?
I am not claiming to have proven mathematically. I am arguing it
how it should be argued, as an explicitly metaphysical claim.
> > Formalists do not think everything is merely formal
> > game playing, they think maths is *as opposed to* other
> > things which are not.
> Not true. That's the old conventionalism.
They are synonyms.
> All this has no relevance
> for the reasoning.
> >> Obviously, as Chalmers
> >> rightly insists, no formal characterization of consciousness can be
> >> given. But comp makes it possible to retrieve formality as the meta-
> >> level. That's the S4Grz1 formalism. It makes its possible to work
> >> on a
> >> purely formal account of what machine cannot formalize, and it shows
> >> that machine can, like us, build meta-formal account of those things.
> >> Once and for all, keep it mind that when I utter that a number exist,
> >> I am just like PA proving a sentence of the form ExP(x), and
> >> everything will flow easily (well with some effort).
> > Nope. The claim that I am, ontologically, an immaterial dreaming
> > machine
> > does not follow from PA.
> It does from PA + comp (= CT+ YD).
No, because those are not sufficient to show that there
are any immaterial machines in the first place -- the "I am"
> >> Adding
> >> unnecessary metaphysics just add noise.
> > The conclusion is metaphysical, therefore the argument
> > must be or the conclusion is a non-sequitur. Therefore
> > metaphysics is a necessity for you.
> No the conclusion is scientific, in Popper's sense.
It is perfectly possible to be both scientific and metaphysical.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at