On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote: >
> >>>> In science we never know if our premisses and conclusions are > >>>> true or > >>>> not. > > >>> I can still resist the conclusion by *believing* Platonism > >>> to be false, while believing comp to be true. > > >> "platonism" is ambiguous. > > > I mean and have always meant mathematical Platonism > > But you talk on a paper with a different terminology. What paper? The Klein paper doesn't mention it. > You are > confusing people. > > > > >> Any way, you can resist any conclusion in > >> science with some ad-hoc philosophy. > > > There is nothing unscientific in the attitude > > the immaterial things don't exist. > > Right, but irrelevant. > > > > >> So you are not saying something > >> informative here. > >> Ad without a minimal amount of arithmetical realism you cannot > >> endorse > >> Church thesis, > > > A formalist can endorses anything with no ontological > > realism whatsoever. All that is left without any ontological > > realism is a formal axiom of bivalence > > ... which added to the theological bet "yes doctor" entails that > materialism, to explain matter, is not better than vitalism to > explain life. Materialism can solve WR just fine -- 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.
