On Thursday, May 30, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 5/30/2019 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > 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. > > > If rare-earths exist you can make things out of them. Otherwise you can't. > > > Brent > So what of rare earths on beyond the cosmological horizon? Or in other branches of the wavefunction? Jason > -- > 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/bfc99f95-c837-38c1-44bc-2a4a003b9e36%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bfc99f95-c837-38c1-44bc-2a4a003b9e36%40verizon.net?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%2BBCJUg0rDnxF959xUmH_MtGLCyMrXByc8wiMntDT0gZ8GtjZw%40mail.gmail.com.
