Re: Fictionalism!
On 08 Jun 2013, at 14:23, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen. Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets. I was taking about the flying pink elephants on our planet. If you question was does they exist in general, then, as any physical object is the result of stable pattern supervening on infinities of computation, we can just say we don't know, probably in some rare branches of the comp-quantum multiverse. Bruno Saibal Citeren Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 08 Jun 2013, at 07:41, Stephen Paul King wrote: If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true (ala Bruno). Right, but like I said, I believe also that flying pink elephant are not pink. And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not exist, as far as I am consistent. Bruno On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 08 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Stephen Paul King wrote: Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated. That makes sense! The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*. In Aristotle metaphysics, which is out the scope of my working hypothesis. You assume non-comp. There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. Bruno On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 09 Jun 2013, at 03:12, Stephen Paul King wrote: My complaint is that there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of existence! Because it does not make sense. That's why we treat existence through quantification. Bruno On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote: smi...@zonnet.nl via googlegroups.com 8:37 PM (31 minutes ago) to everything-list But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a generic multiverse scenario. Saibal Hi Saibal, Does existence mean has a physical structure that can be measured by arbitrary observers? If so, how can a number 'exist'? On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:37 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a generic multiverse scenario. Saibal Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 6/8/2013 12:03 PM, John Mikes wrote: You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'. That's my point. Anything 'could be' if the only constraint is logical consistency (not self contradictory). But in the sense of 'be' that requires a universe and observers there appear to be other, nomological constraints. So there could be an animal that looks superficially like and elephant and lives on a planet who's atmosphere is as dense as water and is pink. But it couldn't also have the same DNA and metabolic system as and elephant. So it would only 'be a flying pink elephant' because we use the words to denote a certain similarity in appearance. Brent Question: would such anything be topic for this physicalist-based conventional EVERYTHING List? Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well? BTW - IMO flying is not restricted to a conventionally called 'gaseous' medium, so 'swimming' can be considered an alternate for flying. - PINK Whales? G Rem: of course 'they' all exist - if not otherwise: in our mind. JM On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen. Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets. Could you identify them as elephants and whales by their DNA? Could the elephants be pink? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date: 06/08/13 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you
Pink elephants
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:23:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno I'm wondering if this is really the best example to choose: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm Now if we were to load up this calf into a jumbo jet, and take off, we have an example of a flying pink elephant that is most definitely not not pink (unless the lights are out :)). -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 09 Jun 2013, at 02:37, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. Assuming that everything consistent exist, but that depends on other assumptions. In arithmetic, it is consistent that proof of falsity exists, but they do not exist in the standard model of the axioms (in which we work). If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a generic multiverse scenario. I doubt this. As I said Bf is consistent in PA, but it can be shown it will be an infinite object, and it is not obviously realizable in a physical reality. Bruno Saibal Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net: On 6/8/2013 12:03 PM, John Mikes wrote: You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'. That's my point. Anything 'could be' if the only constraint is logical consistency (not self contradictory). But in the sense of 'be' that requires a universe and observers there appear to be other, nomological constraints. So there could be an animal that looks superficially like and elephant and lives on a planet who's atmosphere is as dense as water and is pink. But it couldn't also have the same DNA and metabolic system as and elephant. So it would only 'be a flying pink elephant' because we use the words to denote a certain similarity in appearance. Brent Question: would such anything be topic for this physicalist- based conventional EVERYTHING List? Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well? BTW - IMO flying is not restricted to a conventionally called 'gaseous' medium, so 'swimming' can be considered an alternate for flying. - PINK Whales? G Rem: of course 'they' all exist - if not otherwise: in our mind. JM On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen. Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets. Could you identify them as elephants and whales by their DNA? Could the elephants be pink? 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date: 06/08/13 -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are
Re: Pink elephants
On 09 Jun 2013, at 09:51, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:23:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno I'm wondering if this is really the best example to choose: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm Now if we were to load up this calf into a jumbo jet, and take off, we have an example of a flying pink elephant that is most definitely not not pink (unless the lights are out :)). OK. Of course I guess we meant elephant flying by their own means. Like the famous flying pigs :) Bruno -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? Telmo. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? OK. I should have said By logic applied to our consensual reality. Then the difference is that in case someone tell you that Brussels doesn't exist, you can still give him some procideure to assess the fact, (with trains, planes or Goggle earth, for example), which is not the case for the flying pig elephant, (with a consensual definition of what that can be). In my opinion, fictionalism does not make sense. We just need to agree on what we need to assume at the start, and then be clear on what exist, in which sense which can be relative and differ from different views. Assuming comp, I argued that we need to assume no more than 0 and the successors, and the terms x + y and x * y. The rest follows semantically (truth will go must farer than what any machine/number will ever been able to conceive publicly). Eventually, the question is never does flying pink elephant exist, but what is the probability to experience the seeing of one, and what is the probability you can share that experience with others. Pink elephants are the paradigmatic hallucination of the alcohol withdrawal. But I have never seen an explicit report on that, and besides, they are not known as being flying besides such hallucinations can't help to make them existing in the consensual local sense). Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of fiction. It is Aristotelianism. Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion, and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter (in all senses of the word). A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^2 = 2, that is fiction. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I remember but am not experiencing this very moment? I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar, although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams. For example, I've been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium. That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No? I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink. But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke. (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on this planet (I think), and in classical logic f implies everything. If you want, (x = Flying Pink Elephant) - (x = Brown Rampant Worms)is an expression equivalent to f - whatever which is a tautology. It is the way to diplomatically assert that we do not believe in the existence of some x which would be equal to a flying pig elephant. The popular saying with ifs and buts you can put Paris in a bottle express a similar thing. Bruno Telmo. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. ** [SPK] What is it that makes p a true fact? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle. ** The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. ** [SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability. ** There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. ** [SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality. ** Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. ** [SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow a theory of minds. It only allows for a single mind. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Stephen Paul King wrote: Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated. That makes sense! The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*. In Aristotle metaphysics, which is out the scope of my working hypothesis. You assume non-comp. There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. Bruno On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from
Re: Fictionalism!
Stephen, there is a problem with the format. Could you please to reformat it as it is impossible to reply to it. Thanks. I will answer asap, but probably not today. best, Bruno On 09 Jun 2013, at 17:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. ** [SPK] What is it that makes p a true fact? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle. ** The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. ** [SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability. ** There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. ** [SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality. ** Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. ** [SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow a theory of minds. It only allows for a single mind. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Stephen Paul King wrote: Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated. That makes sense! The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*. In Aristotle metaphysics, which is out the scope of my working hypothesis. You assume non-comp. There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. Bruno On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying
Re: Fictionalism!
[SPKold] Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. [BM]Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. ** [SPK] What is it that makes p a true fact? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle. ** [SPKold] The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. [BM] That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. ** [SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability. ** [BM] There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. ** [SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality. ** [SPKold] Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. [BM] Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. ** [SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow a theory of minds. It only allows for a single mind. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Stephen, there is a problem with the format. Could you please to reformat it as it is impossible to reply to it. Thanks. I will answer asap, but probably not today. best, Bruno On 09 Jun 2013, at 17:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink. ** [SPK] What is it that makes p a true fact? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle. ** The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent. ** [SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability. ** There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp. ** [SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality. ** Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory. ** [SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/9/2013 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote: On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist. A pink elephant is pink by construction. Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. A flying pink elephant that is not pink would be a contradiction in terms. That's logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. That's not logic, that empiricism. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/9/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of fiction. Yes. Fictionalism is probably right about mathematics - but it's also right about physics. Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion, All the more reason to suppose it is just an invention. and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter (in all senses of the word). A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^2 = 2, that is fiction. No, that is false in arithmetic. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
Brent: thanx for the text, I downloaded it and still read it. Interesting. Fun: it says about math objects that they are abstract. (e.g. No 3) In Hungary children are taught that an abstract means:non tangible, e.i. not touchable by bare hands (Hungarian has a better such expression). Jokingly: glowing-hot iron is abstract. . On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of fiction. Yes. Fictionalism is probably right about mathematics - but it's also right about physics. Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion, All the more reason to suppose it is just an invention. and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter (in all senses of the word). A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^2 = 2, that is fiction. No, that is false in arithmetic. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
