On 15 Feb 2011, at 20:25, 1Z wrote:
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
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.
We were talking on the UDA+MGA argument of sane04, albeit MGA refers
to the presentation that I have presented on this list, well, about
two years ago.
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
Ad without a minimal amount of arithmetical realism you cannot
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
Materialism can solve WR just fine
Not in a way compatible with CT+YD (that's the point). Or there is
something wrong in UDA+MGA. Up to now, your move consists in saying
that seven is unreal and that mathematics is fiction. If mathematics
is fiction, Church thesis is senseless, and CT is part of making sense
of "digital" in "digital mechanism".
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