On 23 Aug 2017, at 16:31, Philip Benjamin wrote:
[Philip Benjamin]
Metaphysics is not physics.
I think we all agree on this here. Of course, physics can become the
main branch of metaphysics if we make some physicalist or naturalist
assumption.
Similarly, computer science or arithmetic can become the main branch
of metaphysics, or theology, when we use the relevant assumption.
It is not only a categorical error to comingle them, but an obvious
mathematical absurdity.
Sure, it depends on the metaphysical or theological assumptions.
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
customaryQueen'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.
I agree. Bohr was not so good in metaphysics, but keep in mind that
metaphysics/theology has not yet come back at the academy of science,
so it is normal. I agree that Einstein was far more sincere on this.
Now, although I appreciete very much de Broglie, and consider him as
very sincere and honest (after retirement though), the Bohm-De Broglie
"pilote wave" idea seems to have as much "New Age" crappy
exploitations. Again, it is normal when philosophy is still often used
to prevent rationality instead of encouraging it.
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
OK. Don't worry. Nobody talk like this here.
Bruno
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] <[email protected]
> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 4:50 PM
To: [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] <[email protected]
> on behalf of David Nyman <[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]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 18:13, Bruno Marchal <[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].
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 everything-
[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 everything-
[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.
--
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.
