Dear John,
At 11:19 07/07/04 -0400, John M wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I don't know how tolerable our discussion may be for the list, but for me
it
is enjoyable. Amazing, in how many things (aspects?) we DO agree,
coming
fundamentally from quite different worldviews.
I'm sure we agree on something and be
Dear John,
At 16:50 05/07/04 -0400, you wrote:
Bruno, I really cannot work this way. I still prepare to reply to your
earlier post (to me) and here I have the repost on the 1st part
with lots to be replied upon. G.
Take it easy.
I am in debt with ~30,000 books I did not read. Never will.
This is
Hi Bruno:
At 01:15 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
Hi Hal,
At 12:44 02/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
By the way if some systems are complete and inconsistent will arithmetic
be one of them?
As I understand it there are no perfect fundamental theories. So if
arithmetic ever becomes complete
then it will
At 16:44 04/07/04 -0400, John M wrote:
I think we got into a semantic quagmire. I feel a different meaning in my
(5th language English) TRUTH from what I read as the (4th language French)
'verité'. I use 'truth' as the OPINION one accepts as being not false.
Yes but then you will misunderstand
common sense
creativity.
I am ready for a coffee, myself.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...
At 16:44 04/07/04 -0400, John M wrote:
SNIP
I
ways of reasoning. If not: it will be confusing from the start.
Bruno
- Original Message -
From: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...
At 02:45 PM 7/2/2004, Jesse Mazer wrote:
As for the non
At 14:20 03/07/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote:
Yes, but some confusions are so easy to avoid! Confusions will always
appear in the middle of conversations, but I want them at least to be
unexpected ones...! Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the conversation with
my jargoning; I was just pointing out
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... (1st part)
At 06:57 03/07/04 -0400, John M wrote:
(Bruno: am I still in your corner?)
OK. Let us see.
Dear Kory, an appeal to your open mind: in the question whether
we discovered math
At 16:10 02/07/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote:
At 02:45 PM 7/2/2004, Jesse Mazer
wrote:
As for the non-constructivism
definition, is it possible to be a non-constructivist but not a
mathematical realist? If not then these aren't really separate
definitions.
It may be that all non-constructivists are
At 02:17 PM 7/2/2004, CMR wrote:
Would it not be more to the point to ask whether I believe in an ideal
computer
No! It isn't more to the point. You may believe that all physical things
are subject to entropy, and that therefore no physical computer could last
forever, but you should still be
At 10:12 AM 7/3/2004, Bruno Marchal wrote:
True, but if we want to make sure no confusion will ever appear later in
the conversation we will never start. So it is better to tackle confusion
when they appear.
Yes, but some confusions are so easy to avoid! Confusions will always
appear in the
At 10:14 01/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Re the discussion on mathematical realism etc. I ask for comments on
whether or not definition that is the division of ALL in to two parts
is a mathematical process.
To me definition seems arbitrary but some definitions result in
mathematical concepts
Hi Bruno:
The idea of my model is that the foundation system has two components one
is inconsistent because it is complete - it contains all - and the other is
incomplete - it is empty of all.
These two components can not join but the incomplete one must attempt to do
so - leading to the
At 03:21 01/07/04 -0400, Kory Heath wrote:
At 03:25 PM 6/30/2004, CMR wrote
(quoting www.fact-index.com):
Mathematical
realism holds that mathematical entities exist independently
of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but
rather
discover it, and any other intelligent beings
Hi Bruno:
By the way if some systems are complete and inconsistent will arithmetic be
one of them?
As I understand it there are no perfect fundamental theories. So if
arithmetic ever becomes complete
then it will be inconsistent. In the foundation system which I believe
contains mathematics
Hi Hal,
At 12:44 02/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
By the way if some systems are complete and inconsistent will arithmetic
be one of them?
As I understand it there are no perfect fundamental theories. So if
arithmetic ever becomes complete
then it will be inconsistent.
Yes, if by arithmetic
To finish, Kory, I would avoid the term essentialist giving that its
modern philosophical use is more precise than our admittedly rather
imprecise use of it.
I see what you mean, but we need *some* way of referring to specific
(although perhaps imprecise) ideas or beliefs. I might feel
At 03:09 PM 7/1/2004, Jim Whitescarver wrote:
Platonist reasoning is the antithesis of constructionism.
Thanks for the clarification. In this short discussion I've seen at least
three conflicting ways that people use the term Platonism:
1. Platonism == Mathematical Realism.
2. Platonism == The
Greetings Bruno,
This is equivalent to say yes in the
test for "platonism" given in the Podnieks page.CMR, do you believe that a
running program (on an ideal computer) will stop, or will not stop?
Would it not be more to the point to
askwhether I believe in an "ideal" computer, the
Kory Heath wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. In this short discussion I've seen at least
three conflicting ways that people use the term Platonism:
1. Platonism == Mathematical Realism.
2. Platonism == The belief in Ideal Horses, which real horses only
approximate.
3. Platonism ==
Just so my friend Jim's comments to Kory will have some context:
From: Jim Whitescarver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...
Yes Kory, one needs to be explicit about what they mean by Platonist. I
try to be explicit, by Platonic thinking, logic
At 02:45 PM 7/2/2004, Jesse Mazer wrote:
As for the non-constructivism definition, is it possible to be a
non-constructivist but not a mathematical realist? If not then these
aren't really separate definitions.
It may be that all non-constructivists are mathematical realists, but some
At 03:25 PM 6/30/2004, CMR wrote (quoting www.fact-index.com):
Mathematical realism holds that mathematical entities exist independently
of the human mind. Thus humans do not invent mathematics, but rather
discover it, and any other intelligent beings in the universe would
presumably do the same.
Re the discussion on mathematical realism etc. I ask for comments on
whether or not definition that is the division of ALL in to two parts
is a mathematical process.
To me definition seems arbitrary but some definitions result in
mathematical concepts such as the one I use which results in the
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...
Hi Stephen:
At 01:14 PM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Could the Nothing be a generalization of the notion of the Null or
Empty
set?
I think the Null or Empty sets are more particular than my Nothing since
they include all
At 09:02 29/06/04 -0700, CMR wrote:
Here's one reasonably functional definition of science:
sci·ence( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a
At 12:42 29/06/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
I have enjoyed my first looks at Podnieks' page. Bruno thanks for the URL .
My issue is that my model while it has changed many times seems to
persistently return me to the idea that while some metaverses may be
otherwise Turing computable all
of a shackwave, what is the reason MOTION
exists? What necessitates motion and change a priori?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...
Hi Bruno
Greetings Bruno and Kory,
Also, you said that your are not platonist. Could you tell me how you
understand
the proposition that the number seventeen is prime. (I want just be sure I
understand
your own philosophical hypothesis).
A quick aside: It might be better not to even use the term
MAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John M
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:06
PM
Subject: Spam Alert: Re: Mathematical
Logic, Podnieks'page ...
At 15:38 28/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:
JM: Science in my terms is the edifice of reductionist imaging
(observations) of topically selected models, as it developed over the
past millennia: subject to the continually (gradually) evolving (applied)
math formalism. Will be back to that.
Reply-BM:
Reply-BM: We surely differ. I am not sure the word science really
refers to anything.
Scientific attitude exists though. About it the words and expressions like
*curiosity*, *modesty*, *clarity*, *willingness to share*, etc.. comes to my
mind.
I agree there has been, in the human story,
I have enjoyed my first looks at Podnieks' page. Bruno thanks for the URL .
My issue is that my model while it has changed many times seems to
persistently return me to the idea that while some metaverses may be
otherwise Turing computable all metaverses are subject to input from what
might be
Reply to Bruno's Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:13 AM
post
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page
Dear Bruno, it seems our ways of expressing
thoughts and sights is so different that in spite of many agreeable
pointsa detailed discussionwould grow out of the framework of the
list.
I
Science.
I am in your corner, however I spoke about
the "official" terror of science establishment, the editors, tenure-professors,
Nobel people, etc. control freaks. This type of science is perfectly
described in today's post of CMR in his points, identifying "reductionist
science":
With
To try to avoid confusion on what I meant I find my model telling me that
all metaverses will experience the injection of new information to some non
zero degree. Some metaverses are Turing computable between such
events. The new information is as if from a random external oracle. The
to
Dear John,
Thanks for your quotations from (or through) Podnieks. Here are some
comments.
To the question What is
mathematics - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin) answer:
Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you
woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone.
What a
To
the question "What is mathematics" - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin) answer:
Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you
woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone.
Podiek shouldn't have skipped Leibniz in his reading list on philosophy
(and should've
CMR wrote:
To the question "What is
mathematics" - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin) answer:
Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if
you woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone.
Let me make an analogy by paraphrasing: Empty space is the part
AM
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic,
Podnieks'page ...
Dear John,Thanks for your quotations from (or through)
Podnieks. Here are some comments.
"To the question "What is mathematics" - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin)
answer: Mathematics is the part of science you could
: Mathematical Logic,
Podnieks'page ...
CMR wrote:
To the question "What is
mathematics" - Podiek's (after Dave Rusin) answer: Mathematics is
the part of science you could continue to do if you woke up tomorrow and
discovered the universe was gone.Let me make an
Dear Bruno,
I did some browsing in the Podieks website and
found interesting statements.
Without connotation and order:
*
To the question "What is mathematics" - Podiek's
(after Dave Rusin) answer:
Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you
woke up tomorrow and
42 matches
Mail list logo
