> On 22 Jul 2019, at 13:45, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:28 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:16 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On 19 Jul 2019, at 22:47, Dan Sonik <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >I think the main "leap of faith" that you make (and many others simply >>> >can't, because it >appears absurd) is somehow thinking that the completed >>> >computations are already "out >there,” >> >>> If you agree that 2+2=4 implies Ex(x+2 = 4), or more simply that the >>> equation x+2=0 has a solution in the integers, then you have to believe >>> that the computations all exists in arithmetic. Peano Arithmetical proves >>> the existence of those computations, like it proves the existence of the >>> prime number. >> >> >> This is your standard conflation of the Existential Quantifier over a domain >> with an ontology, Bruno. > > It is not a conflation. It is a necessary conclusion. > > It is a clear conflation - necessay for no one.
I don’t see the argument. > > >> Or, equivalently, your oft-repeated assertion that people confuse "2+2=4" >> with 2+2=4. > ? (Yes, some people just did it many times just recently, but I don’t see the > relation with the ontological existence). > > Don't you, now. Maybe that explains quite a lot of what you are missing. I don’t see an argument here. > > >> What you refer to here is the fact that the word "dog" is not actually a >> dog, namely a 4-legged mammal that barks and greets you affectionately at >> the door. That is, the name is not the same as the physical object. > > The name of an object is not the same as the object (physical or not). > >> But that distinction does not exist for arithmetic -- given nominalism (the >> fact that the integers are not independently existing objects), > > But that is not among my assumption. My assumption is (at the meta-level) > only YD and CT. > > Who said it was among your assumptions? I state it as a fact that must be > taken into account. Which facts? The primitive material existence? That is not a fact, but a string axiom in metaphysics, for which there has never been an atom of evidence. Just a 1500 years of conflation of the notion of matter, in which we all believe, and primary matter, which is what mechanism put in doubt. > > Then, from this we show that the TOE is “only” elementary arithmetic, or > combinators, or any first order specification of a universal machinery, or > universal machine. > > But that "proof" requires exactly the conflation of an existential quantifier > with an ontology. Counter examples: all the “E” used in all modes of the selves describes phenomenological existence, and none ontological existence, except the first (arithmetical truth). > The difference between "2+2=4" and 2+2=4 is that one is the name for the > other. But the name is all that exists, so these are identical. Even before Gödel, that was a big mistake. After Gödel, it means you have no idea of what the science of logic is studying. > >> the name "2+2=4" is the same thing as 2+2=4. > > That is a huge mistake (even for a nominalist). It is beyond ridiculous. > > That is your mistake, not mine. No. You are saying that “2+2=4” is the same as the fact that 2 + 2 is 4. > >> There is no object that differs from the name of the relationship expressed >> in 2+2=4. The claim "that all computations exist in arithmetic" has no >> content. > > Hmm… I *can* agree. It is a shortcut for the model (N, 0, +, *, s) satisfies > all the condition for the computations to be relatively run. > > The theory consisting of (N, 0, +, *, s) (N, 0, +, *, s) is not a theory. It is a structured set, called a model. > is sufficiently rich for one to write down all arithmetical computations. The sigma_1 truth is enough for this. N = (N, 0, +, *, s) is much more than that. To be sure. But neither the sigma_1 truth, nor N can be used by anyone to write down things. Those are realities able to satisfied, or not, some sentences made in a theory. > But that does not bring these computations into existence -- you require pen > and paper and intelligence, or something equivalent, to do that. The > computations do not exist in the abstract. You do philosophy at the place you are asked to not do philosophy. For AR, if you agree that x + 4 = 10 has a solution, that is enough to understand that you are emulated in arithmetic, and if you can explain me how a universal machine can distinguish by introspection an emulation of itself in arithmetic from an emulation in a “material” or “real” reality, you are welcome to elaborate on this. > >> Peano arithmetic no more "proves" the existence of these computations than >> it proves the existence of the moon. > > In the Aristotelian metaphysics, that might be given some sense, but you > cannot invoke your metaphysics in a work in metaphysics. > > Oh dear. So all your work is a futile waste of time, then, is it? You invoke > your metaphysics all the time. I reject your metaphysics in order to > criticize it, by adopting a more reasonable metaphysical attitude. But I made it precise and testable, where you invoke a notion never been made precise, nor used by any scientist, and just to avoid testing it, given that I show how to test your idea. > > That is the same, in metaphysics, as saying that the structure (N, +) refutes > group theory, in mathematics. > > No, it is not. Sarcasm is not your strong point, Bruno. Where is the difference. You invoke your metaphysical assumption to refute a theory which has different assumption. I don’t see any difference, and thus you accusation of sarcasme is futile. > > >>> in some sort of Platonic superspace. >> >> Not at all? Realism in arithmetic is only the statement that you have no >> objection to what is taught in primary school. >> >> There you go again, Bruno: re-defining terms so that you are always right. > > Ad hominem > > Bullying yet again, Bruno. On the contrary, accusing someone of something ridiculous is either straw man or bullying. If you have an argument, we are listening. > That only goes to show that you have no reasonable rebuttal of my point. > > + I only show how weak the realist assumption is. > >> "Realism", or more particularly, "arithmetical realism" means no such thing, >> Students are taught elementary calculations and multiplication tables in >> primary school, they are not taught philosophical platonism,. > > Of course. But we do metaphysics, and it is important to understand that the > metaphysics is in CT and “yes doctor”, not in the arithmetical realism, which > is used only to make sense of CT (needed to make mathematical precise sense > of “digital”). > > Without arithmetical realism (defined in the usual way, not as in > Brunospeak), you cannot get all computations as existing in arithmetic, and > the dovetailer does not ever get off the ground. So your metaphysics is > strongly built in from the start. So don't you dare criticize me for my > metaphysics. Do you agree with Euclid proof that there is an infinity of prime number? Or better: that there is no greatest prime number? Then if you think I use more than that, show it to me. 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/CAFxXSLSf%2B4MFa0HGj3VwXYSyQLvDGB_fgxJKD-uW_2o3j9DA5Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSf%2B4MFa0HGj3VwXYSyQLvDGB_fgxJKD-uW_2o3j9DA5Q%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/1DED083F-0A38-4CE1-9C67-530533A7A775%40ulb.ac.be.
