hmmm no, but Ian's original point is correct; while mathematics is necessary for mathematical physics, the Platonist view of mathematical entities isn't. There are bits and pieces of mathematics that you can't do if you're an intuitionist, but none of them are in mathematical physics.
dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen Sent: 14 October 2004 22:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dialectics/Phil of Math Totally specious slippery slope. Angels and cherubs do no work in our best theories of the universe. If they did I would have no problem with them. As it is, it's said that, when Emperor Frederick the Great responded to Laplace's potted version of Newtonian physics by asking, Where is God in this universe of yours, the mathematician replied, Your Highness, I have no need of that hypothesis. However we do need math for mathematical physics, which tells us that the world pre-existed us, and was governed by laws that are mathematically describable when we weren't here. So we certainly do have a decision procedure: do we need to be realistic aboutr maths to make our best theories of the world go? Answer: absolutely. So let's be realistic. jks --- Eubulides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "andie nachgeborenen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > So, before there were humans, 2+2 did not = 4? There > were no twos or fours? Nine was not the number of > the > planets? > > ================= > > Then you might as well go all the way and argue for > consitutive > mathematical Platonism a la John Barrow, Einstein in > some of his more > speculative moments, Whitehead, Pythagoris etc.. > Heck go for a full blown > theism; angels and cherubs are abstract entities, > unicorns, the works, > let's be entity maximalists. :-). We can't know > whether those abstract > entities have concrete existence independent our > cognition/expression of > them in linguistic/artistic artifacts. > > Like I wrote earlier we have no decision procedure > for adjudicating > conflicting claims on this stuff > > > Btw this makes utter nonsense of our best physical > and > biological theories of the world. So these entities > are not dispensible, and Occam sez, keep 'em. > > jks > > =================== > > I didn't assert that the entities were > indispensible, only that the > Platonist theory of them is not indispensible. > > Ian > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
