On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > 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 > >
When one thinks of "1+1=2", "|+|=||", etc. one thinks of, say, "There's a stick and another stick side by side. What do you call that?" Where do people get the idea that there are numbers in heaven that they are thinking about? - 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.
