On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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]> 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 > > > I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is *anything* more than language - which is something generated by material beings.
I caught that! - 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.
