On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.
All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could
= mustard.
It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1
would still be equal to 2.
Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.
You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on
me at all.
Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply
to everything.
1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that
theory.
Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense.
This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the
contrary. The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order
language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of
the theory.
Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the
sense which objects make when we count them.
No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.
Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling
through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to
the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.
It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.
That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond
literal objects to virtual objects,
If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an
hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.
A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a
bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.
A "real" bucket? I don't know what that is. "real" is what is under
investigation. If I knew what "real" meant, I would stop doing
research (like you apparently).
but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.
You don't know that.
I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and
that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.
Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to
the contrary, notably in the math part. The fact that machine cannot
see the equivalence between []p and []p & p already entails a tension,
in the virgin Löbian machine, between its interior and exterior
conception of itself. Machines have already a left and right brain,
and I guess the bilaterality of brains exploits this in specializing
the hemisphere into []p and []p & p. Their logics are quite different.
It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is
already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a
thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or
be anything.
OK, but your argument have never shown that.
No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to
make the argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself.
Like in math. No problem with this, but my point is that you did not
succeed in making me able to do that.
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 [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.
