On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:18 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 9:14:48 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 30, 2019, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:50:37 AM UTC-5, Tomas Pales wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:15:46 PM UTC+2, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Appears to predict the arithmetical reality: >>>>> >>>>> "There exists, unless I am mistake, an entire world consisting of the >>>>> totality of mathematical truths, which is accessible to us only through >>>>> our >>>>> intelligence, just as there exists the world of physical realities; each >>>>> one is independent of us, both of them divinely created and appear >>>>> different only because of the weakness of our mind; but, for a more >>>>> powerful intelligence, they are one and the same thing, whose synthesis is >>>>> partially revealed in that marvelous correspondence between abstract >>>>> mathematics on the one hand and astronomy and all branches of physics on >>>>> the other." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://monoskop.org/images/a/aa/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_Collected_Works_Volume_III_1995.pdf >>>>> on >>>>> page 323. >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>> >>>> In philosophy, the relation between abstract and concrete objects is >>>> called "instantiation", for example between the abstract triangle and >>>> concrete triangles. It is a relation whereby the abstract object is a >>>> property of the concrete objects and the concrete objects are instances of >>>> the abstract object. The instantation relation is regarded as primitive, >>>> similarly like the composition relation between a collection of objects and >>>> the objects in the collection. The instantiation relation may appear more >>>> mysterious though, because while it is quite easy to visualize a >>>> collection, it is impossible to visualize an abstract object. >>>> >>>> Abstract and concrete objects are existentially dependent on each >>>> other, because there can be no property without an object that has the >>>> property, and there can be no object that has no property. >>>> >>> >>> >>> In the fictionalist philosophy of mathematics >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ >>> >>> >>> there are no such things as abstract objects. >>> >>> >>> >>> So such troubles do not arise. >>> >> >> >> Let's say reality is composed of two sets: >> >> 1. The set of all existent things >> 2. The set of all non-existent things >> >> If nothing existed at all, then set one would be emtpy, while set two >> would contain everything. >> >> Now take the nominalist position. Set one would contain the physical >> universe while set two would contain all abstract objects: arithmetical >> truth, executions of programs, histories of non-existent universes, etc. >> >> What puzzles me, is that in the program executions and in the histories >> of non-existent universes you will find worlds where life evolves into more >> complex forms, you will find the risings and fallings of great >> civilizations, you will find literature written by the philosophers of >> those civilizations, their treatises on ontology, on why their universe is >> concrete while others are abstract, on the mysteries of consciousness and >> strangeness of qualia. If all these things can be found in the abstract >> objects of the set of non-existent things, then how do we know we're not in >> an abstract object of that set of non-existent things? >> >> Does it matter at all which set our universe resides in? Can moving an >> object from one set to another blink away or bring into being the first >> person experiences of the entities who inhabit such objects, or is their >> consciousness a property inherent to the object which cannot be taken away >> merely by moving it from one set to another? >> >> Much to think about. >> >> Jason >> > > > For the fictionalist, one can invent anything, including mathematics with > different definitions of sets producing a multiverse of mathematical > truths (Joel David Hamkins) and logics that are inconsistent (Graham > Priest). > > Matter (the universe we live in) gives what it gives and nothing more. > > There is a story today about rare earth minerals: > > https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/investing/rare-earths-china-trade-war/ > > I suppose for those who think that matter doesn't exist, a shortage of > rare earth minerals cannot be a problem. Maybe someday we build a matter > compiler that can make them. > > I didn't say matter doesn't exist. I only point out that the property you call "existence" doesn't seem to *do* anything. See Minsky's point here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs Jason > > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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/9271b101-d253-41c0-b0b2-3bb48b390646%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9271b101-d253-41c0-b0b2-3bb48b390646%40googlegroups.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/CA%2BBCJUjMrcKB%3D4DOBC13c4w8KeUn19iYWj22JGsjEL0Hp4naSg%40mail.gmail.com.
