Bruno, do you hold Occam a panacea? I hold it an extremely sharp version for medieval primitive ignorance made as scientific: to disregard the 'total' we don't know and concentrate on the 'known' (knowable?) part only. Just as the position of conventioal sciences nowadays. The ultimate Occanism is: "- The World "IS".- " May include diverse levels of solipsism, which I cannot reject flatly: MY thinking is that includes MY world. I also wonder what is 'inspirational' to the Everything List: especially after the deluge by Roger and inclusion of actual politics lately. I consider the List a Forum for smart and reasonable friends I enjoy for the past 2 decades and sometimes bore with my agnostic remarks. I even endure the extreme mathematical (quantum-leaning physical?) posts (I don't have to read it all) with loving your utopistic thoughts and Brent's sharp remarks.
Occam IMO was the visionary early mind realizing that we have untrue and unfounded ideas about a small portion of the existence only, so if he wants to stay sane, he has to concentrate on 'simple' details he MAY accept. I find him a predecessor to you (Platonistic/Logical 24th c. universal machine ... etc.). I am humble enough to live with my agnostic (ignorant?) views and confess to 'I dunno'. Yet an increase of our continuing knowledge-base can be seen in the inductional view of retrospective development of human thinking over the millennia. And we have no evidence for having reached the end. Not in Platonism, not in religions (theology, yours included), not in philosophy. Thanks to the List for contribution to my staying sane. John Mikes On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2013, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote: > > On 9/18/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I naturally took an extreme example to make my point. > > > I do that often too, but here it weakened your point. Everyone (except > Sunday philosopher) agree on 0, and its successor. > > > Also some serious mathematicians are finitists. > > The Meaning of Pure Mathematics > Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 18, > No. 3 (Aug., 1989), pp. 315-320Published by: SpringerStable URL: > http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227216 . > > > Come on! He believes that Platonism violates Occam. That is the same > error than believing that Everett violates Occam. Sometimes more is > considerably simpler than less, and that's the very inspiration of the > "everything" list. > > > Bruno > > > > > > Locally Finite Theories > Author(s): Jan MycielskiSource: The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 51, > No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 59-62Published by: Association for Symbolic > LogicStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2273942 . > > Brent > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
