On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I don't buy that solipsistic stuff. I'm fairly sure the science we've "invented" could have been *discovered *by anyone in the universe. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments and > observations get better. > You keep trying to slip in "invented" as though we aren't discovering how the world works. But we are, as having it kick back in thousands of ways (computers work, aeroplanes work, antibiotics work, rockets to the Moon work...) has shown. > Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or transfinite cardinals among > his perfect forms? > Was there some point to that sentence? Looks like a hand waving attempt to discredit Platonism *tout court*. We're not supposed to be here to play silly rhetorical games (and you didn't even specify the "I'm being a politician" hat). So Plato didn't predict future maths, whoopy-do. > 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. > What you *wouldn't *expect if they are "just extensions of a logical language game" is for someone to invent maths that turns out to have physical applications centuries later. Yes that's happened several times. Meanwhile, maths with no application is *exactly* what you'd expect if the MUH is true. Not saying this is evidence for the MUH, but at least it's consistent with it. But not with "we're making up science as a logical language game / cultural construct" stuff. 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. > Having any type of teeth puts it ahead of the competition. When I said I'm open to suggestions I meant ones which at least fit in with our current state of knowledge, not appeals to ideas that we're inventing science as a language game, or rhetorical tricks about Plato not inventing calculus. You're better than this, Brent, I actually feel rather insulted by the level of response you've given me this time. Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can just be fobbed off with postmodernist nonsense, rather than some decent arguments? -- 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.
