This is a question in relation to the question of wether mathematical
objects exist or not. I think that this is not a fundamental question and a
loss of time. Mathematics are.

Existence is not much. Better to get rid of this concept. As you said, to
say that the pysical world, or the mind or mathematics exist or not is more
a question of positioning each concept deeper in the chain of causalities
or explanations. Of course the three exist in the sense that they are. But
it may be that the fundamental things are not the concepts but the
relations between concepts. And maybe different chains of causalities or
explanations are compatible with the reality.

There is no absolute way to argue in favour of one or the
other  existential beliefs except in terms of predictive or explanatory
power.In the long term the ones who have the best explanations outnumber
these that don´t. Truth and existence and what is good converge in the long
term. That is why, in an implicit recognition of that long term effect, the
cornerstone of the acceptance of something is the explanatory power, that
has two aspects: what happens an will happen for one side, and in the other
side, what would never happen and if it happens then the theory is not
worth the pain.

To argue about the existence of naked mathematics and the bare mind or
"matter" as such is mostly aesthetical, because they don´t have predictive
power. unless we add special metaphisical attributes to them such are
inmutable laws, Evolution, or a creator mind and a Revelation. Then these
theories adquire predictive and explanatory power.

What is frustrating is that most of the discussions are not about
explanations or predictions, but about aesthetical matters such are the
less possible number of axioms to explain everithing, the possible and the
impossible, with no falsability criteria.

For me an explanation for everything is not an explanation, because it can
not be argued agains. It is true that if everything goes and everything may
potentially exist, then a selection criteria can filter out what is
impossible. An omniexplicative theory must include then this selection
criteria to be a true theory of everything. this selection criteria is the
part that can be tested.



2013/6/14 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

>
> On 13 Jun 2013, at 21:48, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> What "exist" means?
>
>
> What do you mean?
>
> Such a question will depend on the TOE used.
> What can exist, by definition or by assumption, will be the elements in
> the basic ontology of the TOE.  (Either articles, fields, numbers,
> consciousness, perhaps, ... )
>
> With comp, a reasonable TOE assumes only that 0 exists, s(0) exists,
> s(s(0)) exists, etc.
>
> Such objects obeys two laws, that we assume: the laws of addition and
> multiplication, and some succession axioms (like 0 ≠ s(x), to avoid finite
> fields).
>
> This entails the existence of an" indra net of numbers dreams", like the
> UD*, or the (structured) set of true sigma_1 sentences, from which we have
> to explain the emergence of physical reality/realities, consciousness, etc.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/6/13 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>
>>
>> On 12 Jun 2013, at 22:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  On 6/12/2013 1:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>  Physicalism is by itself a strong assumption, incompatible with a simple
>> and elegant theory of mind (computer science/arithmetic).
>>
>>
>> You say that from time to time, but when pressed it seems to just be that
>> assuming fundamental matter is, assuming comp, otiose - not incompatible.
>>
>>
>> They are epistemologically incompatible, or if you prefer, incompatible
>> with the use of Occam razor, which I assume in the search of the TOE. (I
>> have explained this already, so to be short, I just "say incompatible").
>>
>> If it were incompatible, then derivative matter would be incompatible too.
>>
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> 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.
> 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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to