> On 29 Aug 2019, at 21:10, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:28:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Ito be honest, I have no clue what you mean by “natural number do not exist”. > I can understand that they don’t exist physically, but with Mechanism, we > know that “physical existence” is not a criterium for being fundamentally > real. Physical existence is phenomenologically real. > > Bruno > > > Natural numbers do not exist in the way of Fieldian nominalistic semantics. > > Science without numbers (Hartry Field, 1980)
I read that book a long time ago. Yes, it is a masterpiece of physicalist nominalism. It is not quite convincing though, and it cannot work for the metaphysics, but got some phenomenological accounts right, yet reify them in a way incoherent with the mechanist theory (“well understood”, I am not claiming that what I say here is obvious, especially without some amount of UDA-like thinking). > > http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Field%20-%20SWN%20selections.pdf > > <http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Field%20-%20SWN%20selections.pdf> > > > x-2=0 produces x=2 > > via theorem provers, logic programming systems, etc. > > executing on real machines. Only blessed with holy water. The model of Peano arithmetic, in fact all models of Peano arithmetic verifies the fact that (x)(x-2=0 -> Ex(x = 2)). Without any need to prove anything. Yes, the Models verifies also that PA itself proves this sentences as a theorem, but that is a different proposition. It is beweisbar(“ (x)(x-2=0 -> Ex(x = 2))“) with "(x)(x-2=0 -> Ex(x = 2))” being the Gödel number of (the arithmetical proposition sating that x)(x-2=0 -> Ex(x = 2)). You cannot qualify the physical machine as real in an argument, because this means that you assume a *primitive* physical reality, at a place where we simply don’t know that, and have some reason to doubt. The main reason to doubt is the plausibility of Digital Mechanism. You coherently reject it (I think), so there is no disagreement between us, as I have never claim that Mechanism is true. Only that Mechanism entails that physics is not the fundamental branch: Physics reduces to the mathematics of the universal machine “dream” (to be short). And that is of course eminently testable. Bruno > > @philithrift > > -- > 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/7cb690db-dc8e-474b-95ca-220d51537829%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7cb690db-dc8e-474b-95ca-220d51537829%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/0FA6C83E-51A9-4D37-AAA4-79351508D0CC%40ulb.ac.be.
