On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:56 PM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 00:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > 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 of evidence, informally known as "the unreasonable > effectiveness of math". Does this mean that mathematical realism is true? > No, but then again the same applies to all promising ideas. > The "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is not in the least unreasonable. After all, we designed mathematics to describe the physical world. The fact that it is successful just means that we are cleverer than some people give us credit for! It is not evidence for anything magical about mathematics. > and mechanism is a failed idea because it cannot account for our > experience. > > > Nothing so far can account for our experience, this is why we keep having > all these discussions. > Physics (and the other sciences) are unreasonably effective at describing and accounting for our experiences. Platonism does not have any runs on the board at all. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLSJx13n4Hg4dzmqQsxprX4jL61cgG7Qq4gTiBNs%3Do_aRA%40mail.gmail.com.
