On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 3:11:41 PM UTC+2, telmo wrote: > > > > > On 13. May 2019, at 05:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:52 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] >>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 9:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Jason Resch <[email protected] <javascript:>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:02 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then with mechanism, we get the many-histories from a simple fact >>>>>>>>> to prove: all computations are realised in all models of arithmetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But arithmetic does not exist independently of the human mind, and >>>>>>>> mechanism is manifestly a pipe dream. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You sound certain. What is your evidence? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The is no evidence for mathematical realism, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is plenty given in my other post to you. Even if there were >>>>> none, what evidence do you have against it for you to be so sure it is >>>>> false? (mathematical realism is the leading philosophy of mathematics, >>>>> among mathematicians, >>>>> >>>>> On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.The other days of the week most >>>>> mathematicians are nominalists! (And I had this from a professional >>>>> mathematician!) >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's an anecdote, not data. >>>> >>> >>> The truth of these issues is not determined by counting heads. >>> >> >> It does not. But your conviction that Platonism is false requires some >> justification or reason, given that it would overturn a predominate theory >> in a field. >> > > No, you have to give evidence in support of platonism, given that this > view has been a philosophical failure, leading to a dead end, not a > progressive theory. > > > Physicalism fails to account for consciousness. This is the worst possible > failure I can imagine, given that consciousness is the only thing I can be > certain to exist. >
Then you may suffer from a lack of imagination. A lot of things can be said to exist and who says there has to be some "prime ontological status"? Nazi's and many populists lately also accorded certain beings prime ontological status and were certain of their generous contribution towards humanity. They were also very keen on ideas like purity, purging, originality, and excluding the non-prime kind of people. If those things are even merely in the realm of possibility/range of any kind of discourse, we leave science, philosophy, metaphysics, and step beyond woo-woo theology into fanaticism or arguably psychiatric domains. PGC -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c0520b8-bf60-4138-b25e-7f7d41b1830e%40googlegroups.com.
