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 c
itten for this list.
Finally: > You are hard with yourself, no?< not really. I am willing to
change my mind if there is a better argument to do so - one which "I" find
acceptable.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
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. .
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
slide ruler, while inventing
and implementing a pioneering-worldlevel industrial branch, 38 patents,
consulting (and solving technical production-problems) on 3 continents over
4 decades. All in the simplest reductionist technical common sense
creativity.
I am ready for a coffee, myself.
John Mikes
--
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
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL 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,
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 ou
the language is (partly) conventionnal, not the proposition, including
their
intended meaning.
We must agree on a minimal amount of reasoning if only to be able to talk
about others ways of reasoning. If not: it will be confusing from the start.
Bruno
- Original Message -
From: "Kory
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 midd
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 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 m
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
constructi
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 th
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 == Non-con
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
ask whether I believe in an "ideal" computer, the affirmati
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
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 comfor
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" y
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 f
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:
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 creati
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 conce
Hi John:
My purpose for asking for comments re is "definition" a mathematical
process was to clear up some questions re my model.
1) Does my Everything - since it contains all does - it contain the
Nothing? Well it certainly contains its side of the defining boundary so
my current response is
n inventive
discovery.
Just like the space-time coordination which led to "motion".
Sorry for the common sense rambling
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: Re
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 i
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.
appreciate the preceding to
it.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
CMR
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John M
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:06
PM
Subject: Spam Alert: Re: Mathematical
Logic, Podnieks'page ...
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 "
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 the underpinnings supporting the idea of "set".
One question that
At 09:19 AM 6/30/2004, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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
or your example 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
Hi Bruno:
At 09:34 AM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
If your system is inconsistent then it is obviously Turing computable
(just write a generator
of ALL arithmetical formula).
But I am not sure your system is inconsistent. Well, I am not sure it is a
"system", or
perhaps you just fail to present it as su
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 metaverses
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 class
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 th
>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":
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
points a detailed discussion would grow out of the framework of
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-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, att
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:
: 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 univers
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 scie
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
>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 t
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
sting.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From:
Bruno Marchal
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 11:30
AM
Subject: Mathematical Logic,
Podnieks'page ...
Hi George, Stephen, Kory, & All.I am thinking hard finding to
find a reas
Hi George, Stephen, Kory, & All.
I am thinking hard finding to find a reasonable way to explain the
technical part of the thesis, without being ... too much
technical.
The field of logic is rather hard to explain, without being
a little bit long and boring in the beginning :(
At least I found a v
48 matches
Mail list logo
