> On 25 Oct 2018, at 20:05, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/25/2018 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 24 Oct 2018, at 03:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/23/2018 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that >>>>>> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of >>>>>> their exploration. >>>>> So how do you prove theorems without a language? >>>> Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was >>>> saying (see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a >>>> language. >>>> >>>> The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs >>>> needed the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not >>>> need a mathematician to assert it, or to think about. >>>> >>>> To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language. We can >>>> only ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is >>>> prime, assuming it true, does not need a proof to be true. A proof is >>>> neither necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent >>>> of the big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang >>>> requires some part of the arithmetical reality. >>> But you are basing our shared reality in what is provable, >> Absolutely not. I mean no more than any scientist, and I make clear my >> hypotheses.theory, without have ever claim any truth, like any sane >> scientist do. I am more exorcist: I base our shared reality on a mix of >> theory and experiences. >> >> A theory is better identify with a being or a set of belief. I say that a >> machine believes A if the machine asserts A. I limit myself to what >> self-referentially correct machine can say, and not say, ... > > But don't you identify "machine believes A" with "machine can prove A”?
Only because I am limiting myself to the theology of rational machine, which believe in some universal system. > >> >> >> >>> which is therefore dependent on having language. Right? >> The reality itself does not depends on the language, even if the language >> will be itself a part of the reality. > > Not the reality, but the proof depends on language. The proof depends on language, yes. No problem with that. Actually the proof depends accidentally on the language but depends in a more important way on the theory. If the axiom is the Riemann conjecture, the proof will be very easy. I identify machine, theories, hypotheses, (personal) beings, numbers, finite things, etc. That is enough to get very interesting conclusions, and we can introduce the nuances when needed later. Likewise I identify semantic, meaning, model, reality, divine, god... The interesting things happen in the relation of machine and meaning/reality. Bruno > > Brent > >> We need lanaguage to communicate about reality, including languages. We are >> ourselves words, written in the biochemical languages, and particles are >> words of some wort too. Now, the more a theory is lade independent of the >> language, or the even the theories,, the more is has a chance to be deep, >> and to help avoiding geographical prejudice on what is real or not. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> 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. -- 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.
