On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 20 January 2014 18:51, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> You seem not to appreciate that this dissipates the one essential >> advantage of mathematical monism: we understand mathematics (because, I >> say, we invent it). But if it's a mere human invention trying to model the >> Platonic ding and sich then PA may not be the real arithmetic. And >> there will have to be some magic math stuff that makes the real arithmetic >> really real. >> >> Surely the real test is whether it works better than any other theory. > (The phrase "unreasonable effectiveness" appears to indicate that it does.) > > > Would it work any less well if there were a biggest number? >
I don't know. I would imagine so, because that would be a theory with an ad hoc extra clause with no obvious justification, so every calculation would have to carry extra baggage around. If I raise a number to the power of 100, say, I have to check first that the result isn't going to exceed the biggest number, and take appropriate action - whatever that is - if it will... what would be the point of that? -- 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.
