> On 25 Oct 2018, at 18:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 11:03:22 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > There was no physics before writing, also; but there was a physical reality > and a mathematical reality before human writing, and before humans, although > this is metaphorical, as the arithmetical reality is out of time and space. > It is a category error to ask if 2+2=4 is true now or yesterday. > > Bruno > > > > As the mathematical fictionalist* would deny the existence of numbers in the > first place, "2+2=4" is only true in the sense that there is a language that > has been created in which that sentence is labeled "true”.
Let me labelled the Rieman conjecture (a PI_1 arithmetical sentence) as true, and send me the 1000.000 dollars. Wit mechanism, we could say that we arrive at a sort of physical fictionalism, but to be sure, only the primary character is “fictional”, which just means false (assuming Mechanism). > > If there were some eternal language outside anything we we call material > reality …. There is the notion of Turing universality, which is independent of any language. But is part of the arithmetical reality, or the combinatorical reality, which is independent of language too, but it might be harder to see this. > > (sort of like, In the beginning was The Word …) That was a good insight, yes. Again, when we assume mechanism. I don’t think that there is any evidence for materialism and/or physicalism. It is just an habit of thinking, perhaps due to the fact that those who harbour doubt on this have been persecuted as heretic for centuries. Note that if the logic Z1*, which I describe in my papers, was contradicted by nature, that would be an evidence for oracle, and perhaps some notion of “primary matter” would make sense, but to be honest, I doubt this too. > > * [ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ ], written > by Mark Balaguer [ http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/mark-balaguer ]. I am skeptical of their premises. I would believe more that 17 is prime that there is a moon. To make sense of mathematical factionalism, I would like to see a theory in physics which does not assume elementary arithmetic. It is more easy to explain the “illusion” of primary matter to an arithmetical dreaming computer than to explain the “illusion” of consciousness to a piece of rock. To be short. Anyway, what can be proved is that Mechanism and Materialism are incompatible together, and that we can test this, and the preliminary test, done by contemporary physics already lean in favour of mechanism. The multiplication and fusion of histoires, exemplified by quantum mechanics, is a normal happening in arithmetic. Bruno > > - p > > -- > 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.
