[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense?
Given that we believe in sense?
Who/what gives that?
Do we believe in that?
Georges.
Norman Samish wrote:
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question has
bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can
be made towards an answer.
I've heard some interesting concepts, including:
(1) Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must exist.
(2)
John M wrote:
Georges, your post is on the level, I am not G
I am still in common sense with my feeble
thinking-tool.
Sorry, I am not a native english speaker, I don't understand
what on the level can mean (and especially with quotes).
In don't understand either what you mean by G.
I
John M wrote:
Georges: please, have merci on me! 'my' English is
the 5th of my acquired languages, so to read - and
realize what it stands for - that long a post is
(almost) beyond my mental endurance.
I understand that but the point is highly unusual
and unintuitive and I felt that a
John M wrote:
Unfortunately my mailbox did not take more and wrote:
== message truncated ===
Here follows a copy of the remainder:
...
Last but not least: this view has the advantage that we no
longer have to wonder how it comes that particles follows the
rules, how can a particle
John M wrote:
Georges,
this is to your reflections to my remarks. It starts
to look like a private discussion on-list,
Not completely. And some may also follow the discussion
an find it interesting even if they do not participate
(as I often do for other threads).
but I love it.
So do I.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 16-mars-06, à 14:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
No, because all mathematical objects, as mathematical objects
exist (or don't exit) on an equal basis. Yet the universe is only
isomorphic to one of them. It has real existence, as opposed
to the other mathematical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain the world. QED.
This looks *very* similar to;
]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges wrote:
- The multiverse is isomorphic to a mathematical object,
This has to be saying simply that the multiverse IS a mathematical
object.
Otherwise it is nonsense.
No, because all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
Where could the executive program have come from? Perhaps one could call
it God. I can think of no possibility other than It was always there,
and eternal existence is a concept I can't imagine. Are there any other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
That [The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract. is what
I called a dualist view.
Dualism says there are two really existing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
adopt it either.
But can you
John M wrote:
[...]
Don't be a sourpus, I was not attacking YOU.
Well. I do not know exactly why I felt concerned.
I probably missed your point.
[...]
By George! (not Georges) don't you imply such things
into my mind after my decade under nazis and two under
commis, now 3+ in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
respect the fact). By the way I am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
mathematical,
I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
you do not adopt it (and whatever your
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe includes
a counterpart of you.
I meant:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe including
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
That [The universe] has real existence, as opposed to the
other mathematical objects which are only abstract. is what
I called a dualist view
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe including
a counterpart of you would be a solution.
1) Any configuration of material bodies can be represented as a some
very long
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
What properties of the multiverse would render only one mathematical object
real and others abstract...
A non-mathematical property. Hence mathematics alone is not sufficient
to explain
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 15-mars-06, à 17:51, Georges Quenot a écrit :
*If* comp is true. I am not sure of that.
Me too. But it is the theory I am studying. Also comp provides some
neat etalon philosophy to compare with other theories. The advantage
of comp (which I recall includes Church
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
1. It is not so sure that there actually exist sets of
equations of which a Harry Potter universe including
a counterpart of you would be a solution.
1) Any configuration of material
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
My 2. and 3. remain anyway.
Georges.
2. There may well exist a Harry Potter universe that
includes a counterpart of you but it is not causaly
related to our universe (too far for instance) and
this is why we cannot observe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
[...]
I see. So from you viewpoint the distinction between physics
and mathematics appears as natural
It is grounded in the logical distinction between necessity and
contingency.
This distinction is a matter of viewpoint.
Contingency
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Georges Quenot wrote:
If you are a being that have never observed magical events
any duplicate of you will never have observed any magical
event either (otherwise you would differ and no longer be
true
1Z wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
Your duplicate will have the same memories as you. This
is not the same thing. Once your duplicate experience
something different of what you do, his acquired (and
possibly his lost) memories will differ from yours. He
will still share most of your
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
That too can be discussed. It is not so sure that there
exist a set of equations of which a HP universe would
be a solution, especially if this universe must also
include a counterpart of me.
As I have pointed out, there is bound
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
[...] What we can be sure of is that
1) we exist
2) we are conscious
3) there is some sort of external world
4) there is some phenomenon of time.
*You* are sure of that and of what it might mean. Please do
not decide for
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
on the basis of not matching my experience.
Your experience *is* a prejudice.
Georges.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
on the basis of not matching my experience.
Your experience *is* a prejudice.
Cela est faux.
As seen from your viewpoint I guess it seems so.
Prejudices
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
on the basis of not matching my experience.
Your experience *is* a prejudice.
Cela est faux.
As seen from your
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
(To put it another way: the point is to explain
experience. Physicalism explains non-experience
of HP universes by saying they don't exist. MM appeals
to ad-hoc hypotheses about non-interaction. All explanations
have to end somewhere. The question is how many
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
[...]
(To put it another way: the point is to explain
experience. Physicalism explains non-experience
of HP universes by saying they don't exist. MM appeals
to ad-hoc hypotheses about non-interaction. All explanations
have
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
It is just the idea that there could be no difference between
mathematical existence and physical existence.
Then why do we use two different
Our messages becomes longer and longer. I will split my
responses. I will start with this:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[...]
Furthermore, most of this HP universe is
in the brain of your nephew. What is in the game would be
almost nothing without your nephew's imagination to
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Epistemic objectivity of maths means every competent mathematician
gets the same answer to a given problem. It doesn't say anything about
the existence of anything (except
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[...]
The question of whether there could be other type of objects
than mathematical is a different one. I can figure what could
mathematical objects and that they can exist (though I am
afraid I cannot easily transmit that feeling). It is harder
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[...]
The question of whether there could be other type of objects
than mathematical is a different one. I can figure what could
mathematical objects and that they can exist (though I am
afraid I cannot
37 matches
Mail list logo
