From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 29 Sep 2018, at 02:38, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 28 Sep 2018, at 06:29, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But you do not seem to go the additional step of saying that
mathematical objects, numbers and so on, are objects that actually
exist (which would be a form of platonism).
I use “exist” in the same sense as “it exist a number x such that x
+ 7 = 8”.
That is precisely why you need to study the philosophy of mathematics.
I love, but that is not relevant here, at least before to study the
science.
It might teach you not to confuse the use of the existential
quantifier with an ontology.
You call confusion what is simply the definition to start with.
You can't define cats to be the same as dogs!
You do seem playing rhetorical semantical game to avoid studying a theory.
The linguistic games are all yours.
By definition: the ontology is given by the the things you NEED to
assume, because no theories at all can explain their existence.
Ontology is the science of being in general, embracing such things as
the nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality. This
is not an area in which there is universal agreement among philosophers
(or mathematicians), so it is perfectly respectable to disagree with
your particular view.
With mechanism, that ONLY number exists is a consequence of the belief
that a physical universe exist,
I am glad that you see that numbers only exist because the universe exists!
and that I reline live in that universe when the constituents of the
brain are permuted in some functional way.
So, what you call confusion is the result of work.
I guess you call it a confusion because it informs your favorite
ontology (a physical world perhaps?).
Let us do science first, and discuss philosophy after. I know that
doing science in metaphysics and theology is not common, but that is
what the mechanist assumption makes possible to do, and that is what I
have done (which obviously do not please to many philosophers, like
they were not pleased when Newton invaded their territory too).
Also, when you do a critics, you must make it in a much more precise
way. If you really think there is a confusion somewhere, you need to
explain it in detail so that everyone see what you mean.
I think that the confusion you display between an existential quantifier
in mathematics and an ontology is perfectly clear to everyone.
Bruce
--
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.
