On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 8:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Rex, >>> >>> Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the "discovery" of the >>> Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein? >> >> >> I find fictionalism to be the most plausible view of mathematics, with >> all that implies for the Mandelbrot set. >> >> But ;et me turn the question around on you, if I can: >> >> Do you have an explanation for how we "discover" mathematical objects >> and otherwise interact with the Platonic realm? >> >> >> We study and create theories about objects in the mathematical realm >> just as we study and create theories about objects in the physical realm. >> > > So in the physical realm, we start from our senses - what we see, hear, > feel, etc. > > From this, we infer the existence of electrons and wavefunctions and > strings and whatnot. Or some of us do. Others take a more instrumental > view of scientific theories. > > > Right, and we have similarly inferred the existence of primes, fractals, > non-computable functions, etc. > > > We invented counting, addition, etc and found it implied true propositions > about primes, fractals, etc. To say they exist in the same way tables and > chairs exist is going much further. > All of our scientific theories are inventions too. We can only hope they bear some resemblance to reality. > > > > > So you're saying that "thought" is another kind of sense? > > > Thought is needed for inference and building theories, equally in the > physical sciences and math. > > And that what occurs to us in thought can also be used as a basis to > infer the existence of objects which help "explain" those thoughts? > > > Right, like you might think up genesis and dualism, or big bang and > materialism, or platonic truth and computationalism. These are ontological > theories for what exists, and why we are here experiencing it. > > If you say math is fiction and only exists only as a story in our > brains, then obviously you can't use platonic truth and computationalism as > one if your theories of existence. > > I think the fact that mathematics can serve as a theory for our > existence shows absolutely that mathematical theories and physical theories > are on equal footing. We can gather evidence for them and build cases for > them, find out we were wrong about them, and so on. Why do we believe in > quarks, electrons, strings, etc.? Because they can explain our > observations. Why do I believe in the platonic realm? For the same > reasons. > > > But we believe that electrons interact causally with us because we are > made from similar stuff - and by doing so make themselves known to > us...right? > > How do Platonic objects interact causally with us? Via a Platonic > Field? PFT - Platonic Field Theory? > > > How did the warping of space and time cause Einsteins brain to figure > out relativity? > > I think you are looking at it in the wrong way. Our brains seek good > explanations. They sometimes find one. That's all that is going on. > > Now you say our explainations when it comes to mathematics are fiction, > but if that is so, why not say the same of the physical theories? Why not > say the big bang is fiction, or matter is fiction? > > > They are stories which we intend to have referents independent of the > stories (theories). > > I don't see how this is any different from our mathematical theories though. Jason -- 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.
