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:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to