On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just
a
precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really
real
ur-stuff.
Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think
the former, then you should explain why it works so well.
I should think that's obvious. What "works to well" was invented by us to describe the
world as *we* experience it. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our
instruments and observations get better. Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or
transfinite cardinals among his perfect forms. There are huge parts of mathematics which
seem to do no work whatsoever. Just look at https://oeis.org/ (try entering "liz"), a
favorite of a mathematician friend of mine. I'd say that's a mark against Platonism; yet
it's just what you'd expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game.
I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one
I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth.
How about some empirical teeth.
Brent
--
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/d/optout.
