On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 6:27:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Jun 2019, at 14:38, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 6:22:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Jun 2019, at 19:42, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 12:32:20 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, June 20, 2019 at 10:28:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 Jun 2019, at 12:52, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Logic is mere heuristics.* >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t understand this. >>>> >>>> Logic is a branch of mathematics, which can be used correctly or >>>> incorrectly, like all branches of mathematics. >>>> >>>> In that branche, we study many different sorts of logics, like in >>>> Algebra we study many different sorts of algebraic systems. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is not Holy Writ the LORD God wrote into Stone Tablets. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course. Especially that there are a lot of Logics. But in computer >>>> science and in math we use classical logic, not because it would be more >>>> true, but because it is simpler, even to explain the non classical logics, >>>> that we might need in some domain. >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> *Logic is a branch of mathematics* [correct], and mathematics is a >>> genre of fiction. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't it odd [back to the Topic] that some think that the Bible and >> Qur'an are (texts in a genre of) fiction, but mathematical texts are not? >> >> >> The bible suggests that PI is equal to 3. >> >> Measurement, or calculation suggests that PI is bigger than 3. Reflexion >> and reasoning explains that PI is not rational, nor algebraical, etc. >> >> I understand that mathematics is concerned with immaterial things. >> Calling them fiction a priori beg the question of the Aristotelian/platonic >> divide. Fiction usually refer to false, and so might be abusive in this >> context. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> > It seems like a funny term to apply. > > > Funny? OK. But, Imo, also misleading, especially in this “postmodern era” > which relativize truth too much, except the material universe, which, when > we assume Mechanism, is precisely more fictional than arithmetic. > > Bruno > > > I still don't know what "assume Mechanism" means.
It sounds like "assume Turing Machine". (to apply as a model to what domain, though?) (Physicists today tend to think reality *is* a Turing Machine. That's "assuming Mechanism".) @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/89d6d9c8-91a7-4599-bb0c-aaf548a1a3f2%40googlegroups.com.
