> On 14 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 9:16:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > 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 > > > > "Mathematics is immaterial" is a conclusion or an assumption. If it is an > assumption, then one can proceed within that context. > > If it is a conclusion, then what is the basis of that conclusion?
It is a fact. You don’t need to assume any principle of physics to do math. > > Fiction can be considered to be material. ? > If all the traces of Sherlock Holmes stories were taken out by the sun > exploding (the books, movies, TV show recordings, the brains with SH > memories), there would be no more Sherlock Holmes (unless a SH story were > sent on one of those human-made objects leaving the solar system [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_leaving_the_Solar_System > ]). ? (Level confusion). > > But suppose that "mathematics is material”. What could that even mean? > That (I claim) is a better claim to support than "mathematics is immaterial". > > I don't get the "1+1=2" proof that math is immaterial. You don’t need to prove that mathematics is immaterial. You need only to see that no physical assumption is used in mathematical theories. It is a factual fact about mathematics. > The immaterialist already presumes that math is immaterial, so "1+1=2" is the > case in some immaterial (Platonic) realm (they claim), Mathematics is not philosophy. No need to assume a Platonic realm. You assume only things like A->(B->A), or x + 0 = x, etc. > so therefor math is immaterial. Sounds like circular reasoning. ? > The materialist sees "1+1=2" as something that applies when he (when he was a > caveman) put a rock next to another rock. And so on. No problem with this. That does not make 1 into a material object, even if 1 apple could be. > > One type of objection might be that matter is a mystery, but math isn't. But > I think complexity theorists (like Chaitin) have shown that math is a mystery > too. ? > > So mathematics and matter are both mysteries (but that matter is primary is > the best way to go, given everything). > > I agree with Galen Strawson at this point: The one thing that isn't a mystery > is consciousness. I cannot make sense on any of this. Sorry. 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 [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
