On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 8:58:33 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 2:14 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:11:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:06 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 1:41:08 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 11:04:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 9:28:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2018 7:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:09 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths are >>>>>>>>>>> provable. But you ignore that what is false is also provable. >>>>>>>>>>> Provable is >>>>>>>>>>> only relative to axioms. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Do you agree a Turing machine will either halt or not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Do you agree that no finite set of axioms has the power to >>>>>>>>>> prove whether or not any given Turing machine will halt or not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. What does this tell us about the relationship between truth, >>>>>>>>>> proofs, and axioms? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think it tells us. Does it tell us that a false >>>>>>>>>> axiom will not allow proof of a false proposition? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It tells us mathematical truth is objective and doesn't come from >>>>>>>>> axioms. Axioms are like physical theories, we can test them and >>>>>>>>> refute them >>>>>>>>> if they lead to predictions that are demonstrably false. E.g., if >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> predict a Turing machine will not halt, but it does, then we can >>>>>>>>> reject >>>>>>>>> that axiom as an incorrect theory of mathematical truth. Similarly, >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> might find axioms that allow us to prove more things than some weaker >>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>> of axioms, thereby building a better theory, but we have no >>>>>>>>> mechanical way >>>>>>>>> of doing this. In that way it is like doing science, and requires >>>>>>>>> trial and >>>>>>>>> error, comparing our theories with our observations, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fine, except you've had to quailfy it as "mathematical truth", >>>>>>>>> meaning that it is relative to the axioms defining the Turning >>>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>>> Remember a Turing machine isn't a real device. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This seems to be the core problem with Bruno's proposal or model of >>>>>>>> reality; how does an imaginary device produce the illusion of matter >>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>> space and time)? AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The solution us easy. Don't assume they're only imaginary. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *If they're responsible for the existence of the matter and spacetime >>>>>> illusion, then they aren't composed of matter and don't exist in >>>>>> spacetime. >>>>>> So, the only alternative is that they exist in our imagination; hence, >>>>>> they're imaginary. QED. AG * >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Imaginary mean exists only in imagination. >>>>> >>>>> Simple counter example to your proof: If this universe is a simulation >>>>> run on a computer by an advanced alien species, you would conclude that >>>>> computer and alien species is imaginary on the basis that it can't be >>>>> located in spacetime. But clearly this computer and alien civilization >>>>> does not exist only in our heads, for if they didn't we wouldn't have >>>>> heads >>>>> with which to imagine them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *If you insist on asserting something, anything, exists, but not in >>>> spacetime, you have a huge burden of proof since it's impossible to prove >>>> your assertion by any empirical test. So, you're not dealing with a >>>> scientific hypothesis, since it can't be falsified. AG * >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> It can be falsified. I think you missed the posts I wrote in response to >>> John. The basic idea is this: >>> >>> Theories predict certain observations. We can check for those >>> observations. If we find them, the theory has passed a test. If we don't >>> find them we keep looking. If we find observations that contradict the >>> predictions of the theory, then we reject that theory and look for >>> something better. >>> >> >> *As I previously wrote, I could offer some information about the >> predictions of modern physics; not only what they are, and how they're >> tested, but how they came about. I wouldn't have refer to some paper. I >> haven't seen any plausibility arguments concerning predictions of >> arithmetic being the cause of the alleged illusion of matter and spacetime.* >> > > That's not surprising, as you have said numerous times, you refuse to read > the papers. > > >> * Not one such argument as far as I can recall. None of the advocates of >> this theory are able to offer any motivational predictions and their >> plausibility BASED on your Platonic arithmetic theory; not one! AG * >> > > It's not "my Platonic arithmetic theory" --- This is the a very popular > theory among mathematicians > <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeEAvukZItOCKGXXBf38pv0OlPOxT0i8N7qPky35TqoWgwNQQ/viewanalytics> > > and also the most commonly held ideas in philosophy of mathematics among > professional mathematicians. >
*Let's not split hairs. It's the theory you defend and support, but are unable to give any plausible arguments for its alleged predictions, such as the BB. I would read the papers you offer if I had a sense of the theory's plausibility. But failing that, I am not motivated to waste my time on nonsense. AG* > > Prominent mathematicians that were well known Platonists, include: > > - Bertrand Russell <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell>, > [12] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - Alonzo Church <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonzo_Church>,[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - Kurt Gödel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del>,[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - W. V. O. Quine <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._V._O._Quine>,[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - David Kaplan > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kaplan_(philosopher)>,[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - Saul Kripke <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke>,[12] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-SEP-P-12> > - Edward Zalta <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Zalta>.[13] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#cite_note-13> > - John Conway > - Roger Penrose > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism#Modern_Platonism > https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-mathematical-Platonism > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlPj_qGIt8 > > So it is certainly wrong to call this "my theory", it is the "standard > theory", in mathematics (and arguably in other fields as well). Most > people seem to believe math is discovered rather than invented. > > Jason > -- 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.
