On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 9:50:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Oct 2018, at 18:36, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > 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 > > > There is a sense we know now that there is no definite truth in mathematics at some level of language:
*Pluralism in mathematics: the multiverse view in set theory and the question of whether every mathematical statement has a definite truth value, Rutgers, March 2013* http://jdh.hamkins.org/pluralism-in-mathematics-the-multiverse-view-in-set-theory-and-the-question-of-whether-every-mathematical-statement-has-a-definite-truth-value-rutgers-march-2013/ As physicalism has been defined in current philosophy writing as "reduction to physics: *Against Fundamentalism*.(2018) http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15147/ *non-reductive* materialism is in opposition to physicalism: "Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description—typically, at a more reduced level. Non-reductive materialism explicitly rejects this notion, however, taking the material constitution of all particulars to be consistent with the existence of real objects, properties, or phenomena not explicable in the terms canonically used for the basic material constituents. Jerry Fodor influentially argues this view, according to which empirical laws and explanations in "special sciences" like psychology or geology are invisible from the perspective of basic physics. A lot of vigorous literature has grown up around the relation between these views." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism Materialism and physicalism are not the same thing. - pt -- 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.
