On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> What generates Platonia? >> >> >> >> Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can >> generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. >> >> Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in >> Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. >> > > Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start > doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less > complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I > keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it > scientifically. > > > To define, is a reasonable precise sense, "expectations", "sequence", > "identity", "position", or "motivation" (which I doubt is a simple notion) > you need arithmetic. >
How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. > It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which > prevents you from seeing this. > Just the opposite. It is your unwillingness to question the supremacy of math and logic which prevents you from even seeing that there is something to question. > You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order > language. > I don't see why any axioms would be possible. Where do they come from? Who is writing them? > I doubt you can define "expectation of sequence" in such a simple way. > How can you doubt it? > How will you define "sequence" without mentioning some function from N > (the set of natural numbers) to some set? > With rhythmic patterns and pointing - the way that everyone learns to count. A horse can understand sequence without a formal definition derived from set theory. What you are saying sounds to me like 'you cannot make an apple unless you ask an apple pie how to do it'. > > Again, I remind you that "simple" means "simple in the 3p sharable sense", > not "simple" in the 1p personal experiential sense. > Why is that not an arbitrary bias? If I don't allow the possibility of 3p without 1p, then simplicity can only be 1p. > All scientists agree on the arithmetic axioms, > If that's true, its an argument from authority, and it could be the reason why all scientists fail to solve the hard problem. (which is exactly my argument). > and I have to almost lie to myself to fake me into doubting them. > I can't remember what it was like before I learned arithmetic, but I can still understand that we all live for years without those notions. There is at least one culture today that has no arithmetic. > Something like "expectation" might already have a different meaning for > spiders, for different humans, etc. > Either way, it is undeniably more primitive than arithmetic in my view. Craig > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
