On 20 Mar 2013, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

...

I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in
physical reality often call to a principle developed by Occam.

What's the irony?  Occam is about our theories and models.  One
generally believes in some reality; that why you develop theories
about it and try to model it.  I'm not sure what 'physical' adds to
'reality'?

Let us take an atom as an example (you may replace it by an elementary particle or a superstring, your choice). Physicists using such a concept usually believe that the atom does exist, aren't they? In this sense, physicists are realists.

At the Occam's time, realists were people who have believed that universals exist.


But the notion of atom of the physicist is based on many universals. You can't believe in atoms if you don't believe that *all* electron in a electromagnetic field will not behave in such or such way. And the notion of field relies on even stronger universal propositions, like analytical assertion on all complex numbers, etc.




Occam has employed his razor to strip universals from the reality and his position has led to nominalism. That is, universals are just creation of the mind and it does not make sense to search for them in the real world.

That can make sense in comp. Ontologically you need on the true sigma_1 sentences, which are existential (ExP(x), P decidable, or sigma_0). So you can indeed put all universal propositions in the epistemology. Now this leads to awkward statements, and comp is provocative enough, so I put the negation of sigma_1 propositions also at the ontological level. It is not important where we put the exact cut between ontology and epistemology, with comp, as far as we don't put too much in the ontology, as this will make more obscure the derivations.





Presumably his positions about atoms were the same, an atom is just a concept created by the mind - hence it does not make sense to search for it in reality.

Ah Ah, even better. Occam was good!




Here is the irony.


OK.

Bruno




Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to