On Thursday, September 5, 2019 at 5:25:59 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2019, at 17:43, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 4:52:58 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:48, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 10:57:50 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1 Sep 2019, at 17:58, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm saying there is no such thing as numbers >>> >>> >>> >>> Explain this to my tax inspector! >>> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >> But there would be no tax collectors if such people had not come into >> being (evolution from matter). >> >> >> Without number, there would be no tax, nor tax inspector. >> >> I am agnostic on matter, and as a researcher in the fundamental field, I >> prefer to avoid an ontological commitment unless shown necessary. >> > > Which makes you fictionalist, despite your horror at my suggestion of this > being the case 5 years ago. Refer to the Philip's link to fictionalism > again if this is unclear: > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fplato.stanford.edu%2Fentries%2Ffictionalism-mathematics%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFzxcVQuPMtlKeg1K66ix2tOuluDQ> > > > Unless you provide evidence to refute those arguments and convince > Philosophers and linguists of the oh-so-innocent ontology from high school > of merely "2+2 = 4", with as many time- and spaceless deities as there are > natural numbers at the very least... only those affected by the > pleasantness of platonism will remain innocent clients. These types of > argument are rather aesthetic, which is outside your field. > > > > I thought you were open to Platonism. >
Not the manipulated form you practice where ignorance is routinely used as a discursive tactic to enforce personal metaphysics, world views, and unsupported mysticism. > The Stanford entry qualify the planet Mars as a physical object, as > opposed to the number 3 qualified as abstract object. But “3” is far more > concrete than “Mars”. > Aside from an entire formation of philosophers, linguists, and mathematical philosophers that believe the opposite - perhaps also to stop platonists from abusing their ignorance as a discursive tactic, and rightfully so (when considering the potential for control on discourse, see your posts for years) - even popular culture, e.g. the comic Brent referred to, notes and comedically depicts the existential problem of making claims based on the true existence of numbers. > > The whole entry is based on H. Field materialism, which is refuted when we > assume Mechanism. > Yeah, the bad guys, right? From the great agnostic. Here, you dismiss peoples' arguments instead of engaging them because the usual discourse tactics don't work. > > > > > > >> >> >> >> So arithmetic reality depends on there being stuff to fabricate >> arithmetic-computing devices. >> >> >> >> Physical computer are universal machine only in virtue of the fact that >> some subset of the physical laws can implement the universal machine >> discovered by Turing in math, and mathematically, and eventually shown by >> Kleene, based on Gödel 1931, to be an arithmetical notion. >> >> I can explain to you a tun of arithmetical proposition, without the need >> to assume anything in physics, >> > > If you can demonstrate a means to do so without people having to: drink > water, go to the bathroom, employ physical medicine for survival and/or not > eat meals/consume other physical resources for extended periods of time: do > it. We'd be rid of world hunger with the great imaterialism, right? PGC > > > That is a confusion of level. Group theory does not presuppose anything > physical, but of course *teaching group theory to humans” requires room, > chalk, classroom, blackboard, water. > Confusion of level? If we don't stay hydrated etc. the results will be similar, regardless of faith. And on that level, even platonists have to concede that the immaterial, sacred, holy unprovable mind needs to make sacrifices to the gods of water, bathrooms, chalk etc. as group theory doesn't provide much in terms of assistance there. If you don't believe in your water, you wouldn't drink it and drink immaterial plato water instead. PGC -- 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/5533e574-bdd0-425e-adbd-9195028415c9%40googlegroups.com.
