On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 8:44:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Dec 2018, at 19:02, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 7:35:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Dec 2018, at 08:33, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There is no "even" or "odd" prior to the existence of* matter.* >> >> >> With some act of faith in some notion of matter. No problem with this, >> unless this is used in conjunction with Mechanism. >> >> But there is a problem with this view in the foundations of physics, as >> physicist presuppose numbers in their theories. That works FAPP, but is a >> problem, even without mechanism, in the materialistic ontologies. >> >> Bruno >> > > > > By "matter" I just mean all "the stuff" there is. > > > > That leaves unclear if that “stuff which is” is primary or not. Up to now, > matter is a prediction of Mechanism, but not as stuff, more as element of > (sharable) long dreams (computation seen from “inside” (to be short). > > > > > > > "Numbers" are merely (human-made) language entities used in communicating > (human-made) theories about "the stuff”. > > > I doubt less 2+2=4 than the existence of the humans. I need to assume > 2+2=4 to understand any experiment and theory in physics. With mechanism, > we explain human from relations on which everybody (enough serious) agree > on. If numbers were creation by human, why does that creation hits back so > strongly? Personally, I tend to believe that elementary arithmetical > statement, provable or not, are true independently of us. Matter, human’s > psychology, etc… needs a simpler explanation than simply assuming them. > > All what Mechanism needs to assume is one (any one) universal machine or > machinery. > > Bruno > > > The relationship between mathematics and matter (or, really, between math and science) - *Why does math work so well? - the *‘indispensability question’ - is discussed in depth:
SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ IEP: https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/ I wrote a post on a my 'cheap' version: *Mathematical pulp fictionalism* https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematical-pulp-fictionalism/ I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is nothing more than language - which is something generated by material beings. - 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]. 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.
