Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would be nice to explain what. I don’t see anything here that I could answer. It just ad hominem insult.
Bruno > On 6 Sep 2019, at 13:01, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5533e574-bdd0-425e-adbd-9195028415c9%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/47B32C39-B4C7-4759-9464-1E5A36463775%40ulb.ac.be.
