Re: Is math real?

On 14 Sep 2017 4:47 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/13/2017 4:06 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On

Re: Is math real?

On 14 Sep 2017, at 05:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2017 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2017, at 19:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2017, at 19:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:06 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM,

Re: Is math real?

On 13 September 2017 at 16:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2017, at 15:05, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 13 Sep 2017 12:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent

Re: Is math real?

On 13 Sep 2017, at 15:05, David Nyman wrote: On 13 Sep 2017 12:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10

Re: Is math real?

On 13 Sep 2017 12:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >>

Re: Is math real?

On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017, at 19:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the >>>

Re: Is math real?

On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a notion of rational belief "scientific belief",

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017, at 17:20, David Nyman wrote: On 11 September 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:23, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Is math real?

On 11 September 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:23, David Nyman wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:23, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s),

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal >> number(s), then I define a notion of rational

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017, at 00:55, David Nyman wrote: On 10 September 2017 at 18:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Sep 2017, at 18:58, David Nyman wrote: On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Is math real?

On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a notion of rational belief "scientific belief", (Plotinus discursive reasoner) by Gödel's

Re: Is math real?

On 10 September 2017 at 18:24, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Sep 2017, at 18:58, David Nyman wrote: > > On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Is math real?

On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a notion of rational belief "scientific belief", (Plotinus discursive reasoner) by Gödel's (sigma_1 arithmetical) beweisbar Bp. That makes sense, due

Re: Is math real?

On 09 Sep 2017, at 18:58, David Nyman wrote: On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the fundamental

Fwd: Is math real?

On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the > fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who

Re: Is math real?

On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who remains (despite he is willing to think differently) open to the idea that

Re: Is math real?

On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who remains (despite he is willing to think differently) open to the idea that the physical reality is a special mathematical

Re: Is math real?

On 06 Sep 2017, at 11:06, smitra wrote: On 06-09-2017 10:39, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2017, at 18:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital

Re: Is math real?

On 06-09-2017 10:39, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2017, at 18:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we use the math of

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 18:53, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we use the math of self-reference to study what a digital

Re: Is math real?

On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we use the math of self-reference to study what a digital machine can prove and not prove about itself, and the 8

Re: Is math real?

<everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 4, 2017 12:31 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I cannot see Math Not being real, because it would fail, enormously, if "laws" of the cosmos, did not work. In other words, w

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/09/2017 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2017, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter, and that is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter. Primary means "not

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 02:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can only speculate

Re: Is math real?

On 05 Sep 2017, at 00:25, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: My complaint is that it implicitly assumes more than "Yes doctor". It assumes that computation exists in a Platonic realm independent of the physical. This not really needed. At

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 21:54, smitra wrote: Reply to everyone. What we experience is not the physical world but a simulation of it by our brain. So, even if we assume that there exists a "primary" physical world, we're not really living in one, we're at most living in a World that's

Re: Is math real?

On 5 September 2017 at 01:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: > > On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 20:58, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On

Re: Is math real?

. Improve the telescope and we improve the discovery. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Sep 4, 2017 12:31 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:00, spudboy100 via Eve

Re: Is math real?

On 5/09/2017 1:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2017, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: Nobody can observe a metaphysical idea. You can observe matter, and that is an evidence for matter, not for primary matter. Primary means "not deducible" from something else. Bruno, you are just

Re: Is math real?

On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can

Re: Is math real?

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 11:58:29AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > My complaint is that it implicitly assumes more than "Yes doctor". > It assumes that computation exists in a Platonic realm independent > of the physical.  This not really needed. At step 7 of the UDA, whatever is primary can be

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 12:54 PM, smitra wrote: Reply to everyone. What we experience is not the physical world but a simulation of it by our brain. So, even if we assume that there exists a "primary" physical world, we're not really living in one, we're at most living in a World that's simulated

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your argument is 100% the same as saying "It seems to me that the very possibility of computation depends on God". If God or Matter plays a role in a computation, then you are not taking the word "computation" in its standard meaning (cf

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 16:49, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for which

Re: Is math real?

ism, the physical has a mathematical origin, which at least explain why the physical is so much mathematical. Bruno -Original Message- From: David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 6:07 pm Subject:

Re: Is math real?

On 04 Sep 2017, at 14:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for which there are no evidences at all. You can't prove primary arithmetic either.

Re: Is math real?

On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for >>> which there are no evidences at all. >>> >> >> You

Re: Is math real?

On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for which there are no evidences at all. You can't prove primary arithmetic either. Indeed. But there are many evidences that

Re: Is math real?

On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is

Re: Is math real?

On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>

Re: Is math real?

is causality not? -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 4/09/2017 11:42 am, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Re: Is math real?

of? Bruce -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 4/09/2017 9:00 am, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I cannot see Math Not being

Re: Is math real?

that has been proven wrong, if you want to knock down my assertion? Hopw would we prove it wrong? -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Is math real?

Re: Is math real?

On 4/09/2017 9:00 am, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: I cannot see Math Not being real, because it would fail, enormously, if "laws" of the cosmos, did not work. In other words, we could describe the world via phlogiston mist, or, luminiferous ether (tip o' the hat to the 19th century

Re: Is math real?

On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno

Re: Is math real?

everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017

Re: Is math real?

On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. >

Re: Is math real?

On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is no white rabbits or, to refute computationalism

Re: Is math real?

On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is no white rabbits or, to refute computationalism by showing there are still white rabbits,

Re: Is math real?

On 9/1/2017 1:15 AM, David Nyman wrote: Mechanism makes no assumptions about physics other than that *some* consistent physics must be deeply implicated in the Bp and p relation. The observation that the physics we actually observe is rather tightly constrained seems to imply

Re: Is math real?

On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is no white rabbits or, to refute computationalism by showing there are still white rabbits, and then you can try to invent some matter or god

Re: Is math real?

On 31 Aug 2017 23:59, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 8/31/2017 2:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50

Re: Is math real?

On 01 Sep 2017, at 00:59, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/31/2017 2:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman

Re: Is math real?

On 8/31/2017 2:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" > wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/25/2017

Re: Is math real?

On 29 Aug 2017, at 03:36, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/28/2017 3:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 28 August 2017 at 01:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations

Re: Is math real?

On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 8/28/2017 3:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 28 August 2017 at 01:49, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations

Re: Is math real?

On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the start, like 2 * 12 = 24. And then, the point is that we have to do

Re: Is math real?

On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Is math real?

On 28 August 2017 at 01:49, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of >> explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the start, like 2 >> * 12 = 24. And

Re: Is math real?

On 28 August 2017 at 01:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker

Re: Is math real?

No chance of a pre- embedded proggie, in the universe that makes things that think, and self reference? -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sun, Aug 27, 2017 8:49 pm Subject: Re: Is math r

Re: Is math real?

On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the start, like 2 * 12 = 24. And then, the point is that we have to do that, when we take Mechanism seriously enough. We

Re: Is math real?

On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno

Re: Is math real?

On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 25 Aug 2017, at 22:51, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not

Re: Is math real?

On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone

Re: Is math real?

On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics

Re: Is math real?

On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist hypothesis.

Re: Is math real?

On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist hypothesis. Refresh my understanding. What it the

Re: Is math real?

On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist hypothesis. Refresh my understanding.  What it the mechanist hyposthesis?  Is it the same as

Re: Is math real?

t@googlegroups.com > on behalf of Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 4:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Is math real? On 21 Aug 2017, at 14:43, Philip Benjamin wrote: [Philip Benjamin] There is a difference between mathematical propo

Re: Is math real?

or Physical Spirit" by Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA From: everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 4:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.c

Re: Is math real?

<meeke...@verizon.net> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 22, 2017 2:57 pm Subject: Re: Is math real? On 8/22/2017 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 8/21/2017 4:19AM, Bruno M

Re: Is math real?

On 8/22/2017 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem with everythingism is that one doesn't experience everything. Indeed. But that is a very general problem, and you could say "the problem with physicalism is that we don't experience primary

Re: Is math real?

On 21 Aug 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem with everythingism is that one doesn't experience everything. Indeed. But that is a very general problem, and you could say "the problem with physicalism is that we don't experience

Re: Is math real?

, August 20, 2017 4:50 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Is math real? On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:31, Philip Benjamin wrote: [*Philip Benjamin*] This is the wrong question, "not even wrong"!! The right question is "are the THINGS/SUBJECTS which mathematics d

Re: Is math real?

d Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, really real? Trouble is, people assume th

Re: Is math real?

phy beyond mathematics. It will depend on your fundamental theory/assumption, I would say. Bruno Marchal Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com > on behalf of Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017

Re: Is math real?

cs. Philip Benjamin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 4:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Is math real? On 20 Aug

Re: Is math real?

hing like that. Yeah, something like that. I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I

Re: Is math real?

hing like that. Yeah, something like that. I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, reall

Re: Is math real?

I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, really real? Trouble is, people assume that the

Re: Is math real?

o appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, really real? Trouble is, people assume that the answer is obvious, whether they think it's yes or no. We need only to agree on what we a

Re: Is math real?

(deep) histories. Something like that. Yeah, something like that. I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I m

Re: Is math real?

normal (in Gauss sense) machine sharing some long (deep) histories. Something like that. Yeah, something like that. I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact ex

Re: Is math real?

enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, really real? Trouble is, people assume that the answer is obvious, whether they think it's yes or

Re: Is math real?

ing like that. I enjoyed Frenkel's talk actually. I like his enthusiasm for mathematics. It's funny though he doesn't seem to appreciate his implicit assumptions, or indeed that he is in fact expressing a particular metaphysical position. Is math real? I mean, really real? Trouble is, people assume th

  1   2   >