On 6/20/2016 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2016, at 20:15, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/19/2016 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An axiom is supposed to be true in some structure, not existent.
Then the axiom itself might be existent in some other theories.
Now in the case of "rich" (Gödel-Löbian), in fact in the case of all
essentially undecidable theories, (like RA, PA, ZF, ...) the theory
are rich enough so that their axioms and consequences are reflected
in the relation between the objects they talk about. That is why
both "2 + 2 = 4" and "ZF proves "2 + 2 = 4"" are elementary
arithmetical propositions (even provable by the very weak non Löbian
RA). In that sense the axiom are pré-existent,
It just means there is a structure to counting, a natural invention
of evolution.
In which theory?
but only in the mind of the universal numbers. It is like the
distribution of primes is well defined, even before the first
mathematician discovered the prime number and look at its distribution.
You casually use words like "universal number" and "discovered"; but
these concepts were "discovered" only relative to axiom systems that
were invented.
In which theory?
Well, any theory like that is refuted by digital mechanism.
May be you could try to formalize your physicalist theory to see if
it assumes or not the numbers or any universal system at the start.
Physical theories are expressed in mathematics, because mathematics
is just language made precise
Not at all. You confuse some mathematical reality with the language
and theories used to shed some light on such reality.
so that it's "truth" preserving. So it assumes the truth of some
mathematics, but not existence.
Existence is just truth of existential proposition.
In mathematics and "existential proposition" just one that says some
predicate can be satisfied. Brouwer's fixed point theorem says that
given a continuous map of a set into itself there exists at least one
point that is mapped into itself. That's an existential proposition.
But it's only "true" in the sense that if its premises are true then the
theorem it true. That does mean a set exists or a continuous map
exists. In the mathematical sense, there exists a companion of Sherlock
Holmes who is an M.D.
Primary existence is truth of existential propositions taken from the
base theory, or the "ontological" theory.
How can you know whether the proposition is true without assuming the
theory - which is begging the question.
Here the problem is that with comp we can easily formalize the base
theory, but physics is not really as much sophisticated as such.
But we don't do physics. We try to solve the mind-body problem and the
search of TOE problem.
Solving the mind body problem requires a theory of body as well as mind.
Brent
Some people here seems to decide of the solution, and ignore the
problem ...
Bruno
Brent
Then all what UDA shows, is that if you do assume it, adding Matter
just does not work for the mind-body problem.
Physicalism/computationalism is just testable. And then QM (without
the dualist collapse) adds evidence to digital mechanism.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
