> On 26 Oct 2018, at 21:33, Tomas Pales <litewav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 8:06:03 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > OK. But it seemed to me you said that is better not to make unnecessary > assumption. > > My only ontological assumption is that existence is logical consistency.
Logical consistency is an attribute of theories, or some class of chatty machines. I do not understand what you mean. > This assumption gives rise to the set-theoretic multiverse, Which means that your ontological assumption is very strong, and probably “redundant” with the mechanist phenomenology, extracted from the discourse of the chatty machine emulated in the arithmetical, or the combinatorical, reality. > and I don't mean just ZF or ZFC but all consistent versions of pure set > theory. That is a lot. > You add assumptions that restrict this set-theoretic multiverse to arithmetic. I make the assumption that I could survive in principle through a digital emulation made at some level. It makes possible to translate the mind-body problem partially into a body problem in pure arithmetic, or sound extensions of it. Set theories, Bosons, and Galaxies, are, well fictions that the (universal, Löbian) numbers (the “chatty machines”) cannot avoid when trying to understand where they come from. I try to assumes the less to explain the more, or its appearances and interest. In a sense, I believe in infinity, but I don’t have to put it in the ontology. “God” can be played by the (sigma_1) arithmetical truth, but it is not part of the ontology in any communicable way. It is a phenomenon similar to Gödel’s incompleteness: self-consistency, if true, became false when even just taken as an axiom/hypothesis. I look at a theory always as a machine. ZF exists in arithmetic, and its multiple emulation, including the evolving one are too. But for doing metaphysics, ZF, NF, NBG, have too much imagination. And not enough, with respect to the full phenomenology of the machines. If mechanism is false, you may be right. But I am problem driven, so to convince me, you might solve a problem. Intuitive set theory is nice to do mathematics, but in metaphysics, better to make strong ontological commitment only in last resort. I think. Bruno > > -- > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 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.
