On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Dear Jason, > > I think it was you that wrote (to me): > "I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would > be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by > someone somewhere." > > I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, > exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires > a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist > of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that "makes it > true"? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that > theorem's possible truth value? > > The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing distant galaxies. It also seems unlikely that simple arithmetic didn't work until Ug the caveman (or woman) discovered it. The big bang seems to have done nucleosynthesis by adding particles together quite happily when presumably there was no one around to know about it. -- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.