[Philip Benjamin]

Metaphysics is not physics. It is not only a categorical error to comingle 
them, but an obvious mathematical absurdity. Taoist Niels Bohr and his Taoist 
associates were in a mighty haste to reject the de Broglie wave-likeness and 
force New Age waviness in order to establish Yin/Yang mystic duality (paganism 
in customary Queen's English) as science by equating it with an imagined  
particle-wave duality, to an unsuspecting and gullible audience (excluding the 
eminent Einstein who vigorously opposed it, referring the brilliant physicist 
Bohr as a Talmudic Philosopher-- “talmudistische philosoph"). It was the 
killing of a  Civilization which at least some, if not all, of the Bohr's 
school of metaphysics had really wanted. The rejection of Einstein here opened 
up the sinister way for the WAMP (Western Acade-Media Paganism) to have the 
formidable power they exercise today over governments, universities, 
bureaucracies and political parties. People have no choice but to toe the line 
of the monstrous WAMP!! Or else, get EXPELLED, to quote Ben Stein.

Philip Benjamin

Note: Academedia (acade-media): The monstrous double headed hybrid of a small 
minority of all academics including seminarians and a large majority of all 
media including the Hollywood, with no-question-asked Marxist-like 
authoritarianism as their modus operandi. Based on the works of Rabbi Daniel 
Lapin, Ben Stein, Victor Mordecai, ex-Marxist David Horowitz

Upon decoupling, the unenergized (unregenerated), non-entropic bio dark-matter 
bodies co-created at the moment of conception will be lost in their abodes of 
the dark-matter realms (black holes), by their own willful choice. Adapted from 
"Ten Implications of Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry" and "Spiritual Body or Physical 
Spirit" by Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA



________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on 
behalf of Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 4:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is math real?


On 21 Aug 2017, at 14:43, Philip Benjamin wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]
There is a difference between mathematical proposition and mathematical 
operation.

OK. "2+2  =  2 * 2" is a mathematical proposition. "+" and "*" denotes 
operations.



For example, quantum theory is a mathematical proposition,

Hmm... OK. It is a theory. It is a list of assumptions, or their conjunction, 
about a reality, itself assumed (at the metalevel in physics, and at the base 
level in some physicalist metaphysics).




but Quantum interpretation such as "Collapse", "Many Worlds" etc.

The collapse is one more assumption.

 "many-worlds" is when we don't do that collapse assumption.

In fact "many-world", with the logician's weak sense of "world" is a 
mathematical consequence of QM without collapse, and assuming a collapse makes 
the SWE false, or not applicable to the observer in QM+collapse theory (a good 
reason to be suspicious about the collapse).





is philosophy/religion deserving no mathematical operation.

?  (this does not make sense to me).



Genetics can be subjected to mathematical operation,

?   (I guess we are not using "operation" in the same sense. What do you mean 
by "operation"? You mean perhaps "analysis". Then OK here, but I do not see why 
philosophy/religion would not be subjected to mathematical analysis. That is 
possible in some theory, but not in another theory---and indeed, I illustrate 
that once we assume the mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive sciences, then we 
do have the mean to use mathematics in metaphysics/religion.



but Common Descent is a philosophical speculation beyond mathematics.

I prefer to not separate philosophy from science. That separation is too much 
often used to allow absence of rigor in philosophy, and that is a very bad 
habit. Same for theology, metaphysics. I limit myself to hypothesis making a 
mathematical treatment operational, leading to testable conclusions.

I don't really believe in something called "science", but I do believe in 
scientific attitude, and this is independent of the domain of investigation.



So is the evidential Natural Selection. It can be subjected to mathematical 
analysis, but the un-evidential trans-speciation is philosophy beyond 
mathematics.

It will depend on your fundamental theory/assumption, I would say.

Bruno Marchal





Philip Benjamin


________________________________
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on 
behalf of Bruno Marchal <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 4:50 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Is math real?


On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:31, Philip Benjamin wrote:

[Philip Benjamin]
This is the wrong question, "not even wrong"!! The right question is "are the 
THINGS/SUBJECTS which mathematics deal with real?


OK, we agree I think, but fundamentally, it is not even that, at least when we 
apply mathematics (in the natural science, or in metaphysics; theology, ...).

It is "do you agree with this or that mathematical proposition". (followed by 
"agreement" on definitions).

Now some mathematical proposition does not ask much, like most theorem in first 
order arithmetic (when the proof are not too long).

Some propositions ask us more, like when using set theory, or set theory + the 
choice axiom.

Some proposition asks for so much that we will never stop searching a proof, 
like Riemann hypothesis, which we know refutable in very elementary arithmetic 
in case it would be false.

But the question "is math real" is often answered in the negative by the 
conventionalist (like Goethe, Perhaps Bergson, and the early positivist in 
math).  In my opinion, this is not defensible, from a mathematical logical 
viewpoint, even before Gödel's theorem, and still much more non-defensible 
after.

See my other post to David for some precision. The mathematical real is very 
vast, and it is normal some part are more doubtful than other parts. Some part 
are real, but only phenomenologically so, like with physics when we assume 
computationalism, as I explained often here.


Bruno





Best regards
Philip Benjamin

________________________________
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on 
behalf of David Nyman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:24 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Is math real?



On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David Nyman wrote:

On 18 August 2017 at 18:13, Bruno Marchal 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

On 18 Aug 2017, at 15:39, David Nyman wrote:

He points at a mug and says that 'representations' (meaning numbers) aren't to 
be confused with things themselves.


He confuses a number and a possible representation of a number.



--
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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to