> On 30 May 2019, at 15:28, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 3:15:46 PM UTC-5, 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 > > <https://monoskop.org/images/a/aa/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_Collected_Works_Volume_III_1995.pdf> > on page 323. > > Jason > > This is the opinion similar to what most mathematicians think. Mathematics is > a system that has objective truth. I don't necessarily "believe this," but I > can see its point and will tip my hat towards it. In physics we tend often to > view mathematics as more similar to rules of chess, and where the use of the > rules defines the game. Here the game being how to model the physical world. > I can see this as well. There is the Brouwer constructionist idea of > mathematics that is related to this. Hilbert thought that mathematics was > something existing on its own, which is the objectivist opinion, objectivist > not in line with the quasi-philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is related to > Plato's ideas of there being ideal forms outside of physical forms. > > What is the relationship between physics and mathematics?
With mechanism, or even just form of platonism, that is easily answered. We are mathematical being living in a mathematical reality. it is absolutely undecidable if there is more than the arithmetical truth, and with mechanism, it is obligatory to not assume more than very elementary arithmetic. We can’t even assume PA for the ontology. PA is assumed only for the observer. The physical reality is a lawful illusion by Turing machine, or combinator, or number .. Bruno > I have not the slightest clue. I see this as similar to Garrison Keillor's > Guy Noir who in the introduction would have, "On a dark night in a city that > knows how to keep its secrets, one man searches for life's persistent > questions. Guy Noir private eye." As I recall the quote. > > LC > > -- > 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/0b000a29-c46f-493d-a9e2-396c5544f08e%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0b000a29-c46f-493d-a9e2-396c5544f08e%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/0D5679DA-9838-44E8-9989-568F8C245626%40ulb.ac.be.
