> On 13 Dec 2018, at 19:59, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:44:04 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2018, at 15:31, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 6:01:59 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 Dec 2018, at 21:33, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:39:12 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com <>> wrote: >>> >>> >> Without physics reality would not need a foundation because there >>> >> would be no reality, there would be nothing. And nothing could be >>> >> explained not only because there would nobody to explain it to but more >>> >> importantly because there would be nothing around that needs explaining. >>> >>> > You are assuming the answer at the start. >>> >>> I am assuming that if you ask me to explain nothing I could do so because I >>> am very good at nothing. >>> >>> > None of the above is an argument that physics is fundamental, rather than >>> > derivative. >>> >>> Nobody will ever prove that something is absolutely fundamental, but you >>> can show that some things are more fundamental than others. >>> >>> > So do you think mathematical properties require things to count? >>> >>> Yes I think so. And I think things are required to think. >>> >>> > How many things to count are necessary? >>> >>> More than none. >>> >>> > Give me your reasons for why you think computations that exist in the >>> > universe of numbers >>> >>> Computations "exist" in the universe of numbers in the same way that the >>> Incredible Hulk "exists" in the universe of Marvel comics. >>> >>> > are ineffectual and cannot produce consciousness >>> >>> One of the few things we know for certain about consciousness is it >>> involves change, but numbers never change in space or time; matter/energy >>> is the only known thing that can change. >>> >>> >>Forget consciousness, a computer program can't simulate anyone or do >>> >>anything else either unless it is run on a Turing Machine made of matter >>> >>that obeys the laws of physics. >>> >>> > You have provided no proof to back up this statement. >>> >>> I don't have proof but I have lots of examples of matter doing arithmetic >>> but nobody has an example of arithmetic doing matter. Matter/energy may or >>> may not be fundamental, but it's certainly more fundamental than >>> arithmetic. >>> >>> > Spacetime does not change in time or space either. >>> >>> Of course it does, if the universe contains anything in it then the block >>> universe can't be exactly the same all the time everywhere! If we ignore >>> Quantum Mechanics as Minkowski and Einstein did when they came up with the >>> block universe idea then time and space are the 2 fundamental coordinates >>> of existence, and as we move along the time axis we see a change in the 3D >>> shape of the Block Universe and if we see a different 3D shape we know it >>> must be a different time. >>> >>> > The universe is a static four dimensional block. >>> >>> That could only be true if the universe contained no details. That could >>> only be true if the universe was infinite unbounded and homogeneous in both >>> space and time, and that is the best definition of "nothing" that I know of. >>> >>> > If you think other (past or future) moments of time need to stop existing >>> > for you to experience change, >>> >>> I think it is a reasonable assumption but please note you are already >>> assuming the existence of time, otherwise the past and future you speak of >>> would have no meaning and it's not even clear what you mean by "stop". >>> >>> > then you can experience change without the past moment existing. >>> >>> If it's not a change in experience with respect to time what is it with >>> respect to? The only alternative is a change in experience with respect to >>> space, but such a move would take time. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> Computations "exist" in the universe of numbers in the same way that the >>> Incredible Hulk "exists" in the universe of Marvel comics. >>> >>> >>> >>> Great quotable! >> >> >> Then you, or Clark, should explain why Hulk is not taught in all primary >> school on he planet, like elementary arithmetic is. May be we should ask all >> physicists, economist and bankers as well, to use Hulk instead of the >> numbers, when they share their results. >> >> Do you agree that x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 33 does admit or not a solution? Do the >> term “open problem” makes sense? Ca you give me an open problem about Hulk? >> >> Bruno >> >> >> I think there are "open questions" in the comic universes: >> >> There are many open questions surrounding Avengers: Infinity War. A film >> that brings together all facets of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has a lot >> to live up to. Even after the credits roll there are still many open >> questions that will keep fans theorizing until the still-unnamed Avengers 4 >> is released next year. Without further ado, let us take a look at a few >> unanswered questions that will haunt us until next year after witnessing the >> aftermath of Thanos’ journey to gather the Infinity Stones. >> >> https://mcuexchange.com/q-unanswered-questions-infinity-war/ >> <https://mcuexchange.com/q-unanswered-questions-infinity-war/> > > I don’t think you are serious, here, but I will still explain. > > The difference is this. When the problem about “x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 33” is > solved, all good willing people will agree, and that will not be debatable. > Of course, if the solution is negative, (or even positive but with gigantic > numbers), it might take some time to be really convinced, but the point is > that the answer is definitely yes or no, despite being currently unknown. > > For the comic, there is no "open problem" at all. To use “open problem” here > is just a metaphorical way to describe the impatience for the next episode. > And everyone can imagine many “solutions” to that “open problem”, without any > clear criteria of verification capable of deciding this. Nothing kicks back > there, except emotionally for those entertained by the art and the legends. > > To compare mathematics with fiction is like to compare the bible with > cosmology. It makes no sense. They belong to quite different realm of inquiry. > > Bruno > > > > > I am not saying anything new.
Sure. We can attribute fictionalism in math to Goethe, and many poet. > It's just something many do not accept: Mathematics is a type of fiction. Because it is obviously wrong for arithmetic. Then indeed we can argue that analysis and physics are a type of fiction, provably so if we assume Mechanist in the cognitive science (not in physics). > > (But of course there is a lot to consider and variations within that > perspective, hence many people have contributed to the subject.) Yes, in the fundamental matter, many people have many ideas, but that does not make them more convincing. In what sense could the true proposition asserting that 103 is divisible only by 1 and 103 be fiction? And what is “not fiction”? The moon? Fermion and bosons? If that is the case, fictionalism is only disguised physicalism. > > The label ‘fictionalism’ suggests a comparison of mathematics with literary > fiction, and although the fictionalist may wish to draw only the minimal > comparison that both mathematics and fiction can be good without being true, > fictionalists may also wish to develop this analogy in further dimensions, > for example by drawing on discussions of the semantics of fiction, or on how > fiction can represent. Semantics of fiction belongs to the semantics of natural language. But to make mathematics into a fiction just looks like playing with word, and (worst) assuming that something is not fiction. What is it? Matter? If it is Matter, it is just the old theology of Aristotle, imposed to almost everyone since 529. I am agnostic on Matter, but I have never seen any evidence for it. I see only evidences against it, both from theoretical computationalist psychology/theology, and from physics itself. > Before turning to these issues, though, this article considers what the > literal truth of a sentence uttered in the context of mathematical inquiry > would amount to, so as to understand the position that fictionalists wish to > reject. > > https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/ > > > It is also important to note that fictionalism in mathematics does not mean > that ‘anything goes’. > Authors of mathematical theories, like writers of good literary fiction, are > not free to develop > their fiction in any way they please. For a start, consistency is usually > thought to be strongly > desirable. Beyond that, there are also requirements not to introduce > unnecessary items. In good > mathematics, like good literary fiction, posited entities contribute to the > story. But perhaps the > greatest constraint on writing mathematical fiction is that the latest > installment must be consistent > with all previous installments. Previous generations of mathematicians > introduced such > “characters” as sets, functions, natural numbers and so on. I have no problem to consider sets as phenomenological, in the mind of the numbers, but the numbers themselves (or any Turing universal machinery), that makes no “interesting” sense, as it will be a way to say that physics study reality, and not mathematics. It is just a provocative way to side with the today-ultraconventional thinking in metaphysics (materialism). > The current generation of > mathematicians must develop these “characters” in ways that are consistent > with what went > before. It is as though current mathematicians are all contributing to a > multi-authored series of > books. Just as Tolkien was heavily constrained in the last book in The Lord > of the Rings trilogy > by what went before in The Hobbit and the previous two books in The Lord of > the Rings series, so > too modern mathematicians cannot develop the fiction of mathematics in any > way they please. Making it quite real to me. > > http://www.colyvan.com/papers/fictionalism.pdf It assumes a physical “real” universe. It takes for granted a nominalist account of mathematics. Frankly it is simplet to explain the illusion of the moon to a number, than to explain the illusion of numbers to primary matter (usually considered as “inert”). 2+2=4 is not fiction. If you doubt that, as I said, your tax inspector will remind it to you. Mathematics is immaterial, but it makes no sense to say it is fiction, unless deciding that Aristotle is true and Plato is wrong, but I would need some evidences for this, which are literally never given. Bruno > > > - 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 > <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.
