On 9/20/2013 2:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:04 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
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:
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.
Just because I subscribe to the list doesn't oblige me accept its dogma. I
think Mycielski remark is irrelevant. Occam is no more than a rough guide
Arguably, Occam might gain the status of theory once we accept
self-sampling. Of course you're not forced to accept it -- I'm
agnostic on it myself. But it's not beyond the pale that Occam could
actually be theory. No?
To be a theory there would have to be a clear meaning of what of is not to be multiplied
beyond necessity. Occam said 'entities', but by that measure the atomic theory of matter
is very much contrary to his principle. It's now usually interpreted to mean a simple
theory is best, without really specifying how 'simple' is to be measured. The are
proposals based on information theory and minimum message length, but even there it's not
clear how to compare the measure of say general relativity and loop quantum gravity and
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.