On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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 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