Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi, > > What do you mean by Platonia? > > The kind of Platonia in Tegmark or in Peter's (1Z) post does not make > sense for mathematicians. Even if you are using a theory like Quine's > NF, which allows mathematical universes, you still have no > mathematical description of the whole mathematical reality. Do you have to have a description of the whole mathematical reality to assert it exists? Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe in mathematics exists "in platonia"?
Bruno Marchal wrote: > Like in Plotinus, the ultimate being (arithmetical platonia) is not a > being > itself (nor is matter!). Could you explain what you mean with that? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Platonia-tp30955253p30959973.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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.
