> On 5 Jun 2020, at 21:42, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bruno quotes: > > "Of this reality, as I explained […], I take a 'realistic" view. At any rate > (and this is my main point) this realistic view is much more plausible of > mathematical than of physical reality, because mathematical objects are so > much more what they seem. A chair or a star is not in the least like what it > seems to be ; the more we think of it, the fuzzier its outlines become in the > haze of sensations which surrounds it; but '2' and '317' has nothing to do > with sensations, and its properties stand out the more clearly the more > closely we scrutinize it. It may be that modern physics fits best in the > framework of idealistic philosophy---I do not believe it, but there are > eminent physicist who say so. Pure Mathematics, on the other hand, seems to > me a rock on which all idealism founders: 317 is prime, not because we think > so, or because our minds are shaped in one way rather than another, but > because it is so, because mathematical is built that way." > `--- G. H. Hardy, "A Mathematician's Apology", Cambridge University Press, > 1940 (1998) > > Exactly why we should recognize that mathematics is made-up. We understand > it clearly because there is nothing to it except what we put in.
Why would we give 1,000,000 $ to someone solving a conjecture on the prime numbers, is we get only what we put in? And why arithmetic. Why not say this for physics? I don’t see an argument. You are just saying that the physical reality is primitive. That’s begging the question entirely. Physics is a wonderful science, but metaphysical physicalism is refuted … since Plato. And it is refuted constructively by Turing type of Digital Mechanism, so we can do the test, and the test confirms Mechanism, and confirms Plato’s refutation of physicalism (with a different vocabulary, though). When metaphysics is done with the scientific attitude, it is better to avoid starting from any ontological commitment, just using the axioms needed to define the concept in which we are ready to believe at the start, like the notion of digital machine, when we assume digital mechanism. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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/1924fa66-9dc0-8c03-e426-fdf77d8a97a3%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1924fa66-9dc0-8c03-e426-fdf77d8a97a3%40verizon.net?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/1579338E-F864-41AD-B66A-D51C6E30C84F%40ulb.ac.be.
