On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 2 Jan 2019, at 21:09, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > 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? > > > When we assume digital mechanism, only numbers (or equivalent) can think, > and get deluded in confusing the (quite real) physical appearance, with an > ontological being. > > The idea that mathematics is just language does not make sense to me. > > It is a confusion between “2+2=4” and the fact that 2+2=4. > > Once a mathematical realm is enough to possess Turing universal numbers, > it kicks strongly back, and indeed such a realm is not amenable completely > to *any* theory or language. > > The mathematical theories used language, and are limited by the language > to get the whole truth, which shows that such a truth is fundamentally > above language and larger than syntactical or mechanical construction. > The beauty, is that once a universal machine is Löbienne, like when > believing in sufficiently powerful induction axioms, the machine get aware > of its own limitations with respect to some truth. That is how and why they > develop religion, i.e. a conception of reality with the idea that such a > reality is beyond their rational means, but not necessarily beyond personal > reflection and personal experience. > > With mechanism, we have the proof that in between rationalism and > irrationalism, there is a surrational corona, containing many true but > unprovable (unjustifiable by purely rational means) statements. > > There are tuns of evidence for a physical reality, but no evidence at all > for the idea that such a physical reality is primary. That is only believed > by many today due to 1500 years of brainwashing by pseudo-religious people. > > To confuse matter with primary matter is the dogma of Aristotle. There has > never been one experience confirming this, and with mechanism, quantum > physics provide strong experimental reason to believe that the mechanist > immaterialism is more plausible than a primary matter. My work did give > hope to no-mechanist people, but eventually, the experimental conclusions > do not side with their materialist metaphysical wishes. > > Materialism is just like “vitalism” in biology. It will disappear like all > superstition get away with enough reflection, I think. Of course, that will > take time, as the humans are not really interested in truth, and the > religious field is, more than any others, a place driven by the wishful > thinking. > > What many people misses is that computation is a purely arithmetical > notion. Something I have been asked to put out of my thesis because it was > judged to be too much easy and well known, ironically, as I have discovered > since that this is not yet well grasped by most, except the expert in the > field. > > Bruno > >
Like "You go to war with the army you have" (Donald Rumsfeld), you make reality out of the ontology you have. Of course if "Numbers is all there is", then everything - people, dogs, galaxies, ... - is a numerical entity (what I would call a numerical simulation). Everything that is and is true, is and is true in that ontology. And that's it and there's nothing more to say. But if numbers do not exist (I don't believe they do), then there is something else that does. And that something else is matter. - 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.
