On 23 Jun 2016, at 08:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
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.
I guess you mean That does NOT mean that a set or a map exists. OK. It
means that those things exists in all models of the theory involved.
But no need to assume in the theory those models, which actually would
lead to inconsistency, by incompleteness.
In the mathematical sense, there exists a companion of Sherlock
Holmes who is an M.D.
No. Not in any interesting sense. You might say that the UD brought
computations which simulates worlds with Sherlock Holmes, but this can
happen in a similar sense with the solution of shroedinger equation
too, and then Sherlock do exist physically too. No problem, in the
normal worlds he will see the same physics as us, which is what counts.
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.
Because I have an intended model in the mind.
How could you search your keys if you don't have a model of reality
where your keys is somewhere.
Now I insist: read Torket Franzen book "Inexhaustibility", as he is
excellent on truth, on how to use the concept without doing
philosophical involvement.
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.
qZ1* and qX1*, as well as qS4Grz1 are three theories of physical bodies.
Bruno
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.
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.
