> On 17 May 2019, at 09:31, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:56 PM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:16 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
Only by assuming we are actual infinite beings, but there are no evidences for this, nor any theory using this. > Platonism does not have any runs on the board at all. It follows from the mechanist hypothesis, at the base of all science today. In fact, mathematician meant originally at Plato’s time “skeptical about Aristotle materialist theology”. There is not one evidence fro any primitive matter. Physics predicts well, and indeed, it is its goal, but to give an account of the experience, they need to identify the first person with its brain, and that requires special infinities. On the contrary, mechanism is the only theory that I know of which explain both the first person experience, and the appearance of a material reality, and this without anymore ontological commitment than the belief that equation like x + 4 = 9 admits solutions, and also that x = 1, say, is *not* a solution. Physics is “platonism” (realist) in that sense, but can only link brain and mind by using actual infinities in the mind and in the brain, leading to the assumption that Mechanism has to be wrong (but then darwinism, molecular biology, genetics, even current formulation of physics are all wrong). Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSJx13n4Hg4dzmqQsxprX4jL61cgG7Qq4gTiBNs%3Do_aRA%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSJx13n4Hg4dzmqQsxprX4jL61cgG7Qq4gTiBNs%3Do_aRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/608ECAA7-FFAC-4E9F-AAC3-C952A7B1BDC3%40ulb.ac.be.
