> On 25 Oct 2018, at 20:05, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 10/25/2018 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 24 Oct 2018, at 03:22, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/23/2018 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
