> On 12 Mar 2018, at 02:37, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 3/11/2018 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> That's false. You implicitly and without proof or ever evidence assume >>> that mathematics, computation, and abstractions like numbers exist, >> I have to assume them because the notion of computation needs them to be >> defined mathematically. >> >> Now if you deny that the equation x + 1 = 2 has no solution, I have a >> problem, but I am pretty sure you agree that such a solution exist. > > You know very well that is a disingenuous play on words. Satisfying a > formula is not existence. Otherwise we could write (looks like a horse with > a narwhal horn) = x and since it is satisfied by x=unicorn we have proven > that unicorns exist.
You are the disingenuous one here. You are supposed to have understood that the notion of computations is arithmetical, and that they exist in arithmetic, which, once we assume mechanism invite us to reconsider the existence of something satisfying our experiences. I have put my assumption on the table, so yes, indeed, only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), … exist. Then you invoke your favorite deity “The Primary Physical Universe” to define your notion of “real existence”. I have no problem with that, unless you bet on computationalism too. In that case, your hypothesis hides the problem to measure the difference between the physics in the head of all universal machine and the local observable reality. Arithmetic, or the applicative algebras contains a deluder (the universal numbers) and many deluders (the other universal numbers), but consciousness stabilise only ‘trivially” on the structure allowing reasonable measure, and we could bet on group theory, Lie group, except that at this stage, that would be like cheating, and without the translation in G, we miss the G* and variants nuances. Of course, satisfying a formula is not prove of existence, except for those who learn and believe in the axioms, as I am sure you do. The computations are the sigma_1 arithmetical relations, and they exist like the prime numbers can be said to exist, and then not only we need nothing more, but adding something can lead to inflations of possibilities if brought in the ontology. Bruno > > Brent > >> >> After that, the reasoning show that assuming more existing things in the >> ontology cannot work. >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
