Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. What about theorems in calculus and topology? Most, if not all, are theorems of arithmetic in disguise. Few math go really beyond PI-1 or Pi_2 arithmetical complexity, when you study their logical complexity. Only category and set theory go much beyond, and genuinely go beyond arithmetical complexity. I could say more on this when I have more time, but it requires some amount of mathematical logic. Macintyre wrote papers on this, and Torkel Franzen made a similar point in his book inexhaustibility. Some other people makes this points trivial, but only by a *misuse* of comp, note. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. With comp the cardinality of our reality is absolutely undecidable. I think that the core issue is in finding a simple theory, with the less ontological commitment as possible, and the fewest possible of assumptions, explaining the observation, but also the fist person, consciousness, etc. Here QM is an amazing jewel, but with comp it has to be derived from the math of the first person (hopefully and reasonably plural). Bruno Jason 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. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 23:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? I would say the fictionalists. They will say that Sherlock and Santa Klauss exists, because you can predicate them in some meaningful sentences. The realist believes in some reality, that is assumed it explicitly, with basic elements obeying laws, and it will study the complex 1p/3p relations which might ensue, and (at least try) to generate the many notions of existence of that. I would say the TOE goal is to find the simplest theory explaining and classifying the many notions of existence possible. But that's exactly what the ideally correct Lôbian universal machine discovers when looking inward, the 8 nuances between truth (p), provable (Bp), knowable (Bp p), observable (Bp Dt), sensible (Bp a Dt p). There are different precise mathematics for existence in each such (modal, arithmetical) logic. Sensible existence would be, with p arithmetical sigma_1 sentences, []Ex []F(x), with []p = Bp Dt p). (B = Gödel's beweisbar arithmetical predicate, Dp = ~B~p, p = ~[]~p, and p a sigma_1 sentences). Bruno Jason Brent -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 11 Jun 2013, at 18:28, meekerdb wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. It has the same meaning in different theories. Without giving me your theory of humans, Ex(x = Sherlock has no meaning, except referring to consensual reality, but this is what we want to explain. You beg the question. In consensual reality it is just reasonable to say that Sherlock does exist only as a fictional character. But that is not what we discuss. In the comp TOE Ex (x = sherlock) is as false as Ex (x = Brent), because Brent and Sherlock are (different probably) sort of emerging reality. Only natural numbers exist in the sense of ExP(x). So in the comp TOE, only numbers are NOT fiction, if basic existence is the criteria. Brent and Sherlock are different type of fiction. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. Classical logic formalizes machines or numbers understanding of Platonia. There is a pink elephant. may mean no more than That looks like an elephant painted pink. It's not an axiom of a formal system. I deliberately included flying because it makes the identification as elephant problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an elephant painted pink, we'd certainly call it a pink elephant. But if we found an animal that looked like an elephant with wings that could fly, we'd only call it a flying elephant metaphorically. My problem was just with fictionalism in math. It is fake sort of philosophy. We must avoid words like real or fiction, just agree on which theory we are willing to use. Bruno Brent f - q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t V q. p - everything in all words where p is false, even if there are worlds were p is true. -- 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 11 Jun 2013, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote: On 6/11/2013 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? They don't exist like elephants do. They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do. Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not. In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters. Exactly. But fictional characters can satisfy existential propositions: Ex(x=friend of Dr. Watson), because E is context dependent. But in the comp TOE, there are many notion of emerging existence. None are fiction, they have just different meanings; The question, when working in some TOE, consists in being clear on the basic ontology, with a clear (first order) sense for Ex. 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 11 Jun 2013, at 19:04, Jason Resch wrote: From the video: What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good and very complete I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism. To believe math is a human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know about math comes from the starting assumptions we choose. We now know this to be untrue, our picture (or anyone's picture) of math will always be incomplete, there is always more math out there to discover. We make progress in math the same way we do in all the other sciences, making observations, drawing conclusions, seeing if our theories are consistent, etc. Over time we develop our accepted axioms the same way we develop our fundamental physical theories. We observe and explore other mathematical structures/universes through the tool of simulation (either using our brains or using computers), and that is how information about other universes enters our own. I agree completely. I do take incompleteness, or the consequences of Church thesis as illustrating very well the objectivity of arithmetic. Above arithmetic, I have no problem to classify some construct as being epistemological, but the exact frontier between ontology and epistemology is unimportant, as the inside views will have an objective arithmetical behavior, even when not arithmetical. And this is well justified by the fact that although we can do easily intuitive number theory without ever formalizing the theory (like number theorist), this is no more the case for set theory, whose intuitive part is just inconsistent, and when it is formalized, the communicable part belongs to arithmetic. So I agree with your for arithmetic, and above arithmetic it is a question of convention. Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. Bruno Jason On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E #! -- 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. 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 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning.
Re: Fictionalism!
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your
Re: Fictionalism!
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and
Re: Fictionalism!
This is the documentary mentioned Flying wales at 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU my pleasure 2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that:
Re: Fictionalism!
This one more informative and without annoying music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3m32AUwUM 2013/6/12 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com This is the documentary mentioned Flying wales at 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU my pleasure 2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant
Re: Fictionalism!
On 12 Jun 2013, at 14:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? You will not help John! I know, couldn't resist :) But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by elephant. On that smaller planet elephant might be called bird. Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of elephant on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this: http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg FAKE! :) By the way I would classify this as an eagle (suffering from elephantiasis). Bruno Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing some identity or parental relation. With enough IF you can deduce what you want. If some dictator renamed the bird as elephant, then surely elephant can fly. Bruno Telmo. Bruno JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically meta-mathematics. What about theorems in calculus and topology? 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 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. 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 Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Jason 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. 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 Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? Jason 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/12/2013 2:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious. Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all. Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche? But in what sense would they be elephants? That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up. Things are either consistently defined or they are not. Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity. Example: Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant? I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be. Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language. Which language and described by whom? Mathematics, arithmetic, english... People who belong to Everything lists. 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 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. f - q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t V q. p - everything in all words where p is false, even if there are worlds were p is true. 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
Re: Fictionalism!
On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? Why? In most elementary (first order) theory of arithmetic, you can prove the following: Ex(x = 0) Ex(x = s(0)) Ex(x = s(s(0))) etc. Bruno On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Bruno Brent 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. Ok, I'm convinced. Telmo. -- 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 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
Re: Fictionalism!
On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? They don't exist like elephants do. They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do. Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not. In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters. 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 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. There is a pink elephant. may mean no more than That looks like an elephant painted pink. It's not an axiom of a formal system. I deliberately included flying because it makes the identification as elephant problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an elephant painted pink, we'd certainly call it a pink elephant. But if we found an animal that looked like an elephant with wings that could fly, we'd only call it a flying elephant metaphorically. Brent f - q is a tautology. It is
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/11/2013 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:49, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? They don't exist like elephants do. They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do. Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not. In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters. Exactly. But fictional characters can satisfy existential propositions: Ex(x=friend of Dr. Watson), because E is context dependent. 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!
From the video: What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good and very complete I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism. To believe math is a human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know about math comes from the starting assumptions we choose. We now know this to be untrue, our picture (or anyone's picture) of math will always be incomplete, there is always more math out there to discover. We make progress in math the same way we do in all the other sciences, making observations, drawing conclusions, seeing if our theories are consistent, etc. Over time we develop our accepted axioms the same way we develop our fundamental physical theories. We observe and explore other mathematical structures/universes through the tool of simulation (either using our brains or using computers), and that is how information about other universes enters our own. Jason On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#! -- 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!
Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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/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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. There is a pink elephant. may mean no more than That looks like an elephant painted pink. It's not an axiom of a formal system. I deliberately included
Re: Fictionalism!
Sadly, John, many people don't get the existence question! On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? JM On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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/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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x = 17), but we cannot prove in your theory that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes). But E in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything. In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. There is a pink
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/7/2013 10:41 PM, 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). The belief a flying pink elephant is pink is tautologically true On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto: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 it's true that 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists? I think this is wrong. 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 Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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. Ok, I'm convinced. Telmo. 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-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. 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
Re: Fictionalism!
On 09 Jun 2013, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote: 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. Exact. That's why a flying pink elephant that is not pink does not exist. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink. That's not logic, that empiricism. Exact. That's why I don't take seriously flying pink elephant, and assume them not existing, making the logical pun above possible. 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 20:58, meekerdb 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. With fiction = illusion, that's the case with physics when assuming comp, indeed. But usually fiction are supposed to be not true. Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion, All the more reason to suppose it is just an invention. By who? Cf comp makes humans an invention of numbers. 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. That's what I meant. 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 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. Brent 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. Ok, I'm convinced. Telmo. -- 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 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Bruno Brent 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. Ok, I'm convinced. Telmo. -- 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 6/10/2013 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Actually it does. Let y=x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three. Then, if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real. It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he existed. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but There is a pink elephant. is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that everything follows from a falsehood. 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!
So numbers do not exist? On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2013, at 18:25, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2013 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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/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), But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. I agree. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like Flying pink elephants are pink don't imply the existence of anything; just like 17 is prime doesn't imply the existence of 17. But how do you formalize flying pink elephant are pink ? I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical formula: if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink. This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is flying) For the same reason that: if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3 then x is bigger than 3 does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3). Bruno Brent 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. Ok, I'm convinced. Telmo. -- 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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=enhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: So numbers do not exist? They don't exist like elephants do. They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do. 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 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
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: 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
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-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 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-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!
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. 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-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!
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. The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated. The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*. There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bpp.. 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-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 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
I agree, Saibal, but we don't really need to have an actual creature living and breathing creature; any simulation of an 'elephant' will do. All that matters is that the resources that support the 'creature' are verifiable in multiple independent ways. On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, 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. 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/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=enhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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=enhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more
Re: Fictionalism!
And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not exist, as far as I am consistent. Ah, Dear Bruno, you are not the only one that must agree that the elephant does not exist (unless you embrace that you are a consistent solipsist!) On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
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. 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 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, 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. 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!
You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'. 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 wrote: On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
Hi Brent, So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a simulated world be? Would it exist? On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 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 wrote: On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, 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. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - 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 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
On 6/8/2013 4:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a simulated world be? Would it exist? It would exist in the computer simulation. But would it be a Pink Elephant - that seems like a question of semantics. We look at the screen and say, That's a pink elephant. but we don't mean that literally. Simulated people in the simulation may say, That's a pink elephant. and mean it literally. Brent On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@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. 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 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 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
Re: Fictionalism!
I am trying to make a point about existence... On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/8/2013 4:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a simulated world be? Would it exist? It would exist in the computer simulation. But would it be a Pink Elephant - that seems like a question of semantics. We look at the screen and say, That's a pink elephant. but we don't mean that literally. Simulated people in the simulation may say, That's a pink elephant. and mean it literally. Brent On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: 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 wrote: On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, 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. 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - 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 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. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - 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 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
Re: Fictionalism!
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 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!
smi...@zonnet.nl viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%**2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com **. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.** com everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@**googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To
Re: Fictionalism!
My complaint is that there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of existence! On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote: smi...@zonnet.nl viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182 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.netmailto: 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%**2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com **. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.* *com everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@**googlegroups.comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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.
Re: Fictionalism!
In my view, mathematics refers to two things: 1) A private experience of imagined sensory figures or symbols which represent quantitative values and linear reasoning. 2) When applied to public objects, math provides a logic which is derived from the common sense of spatial extension: fixed positions and linear process. Math can be confusing because it is *a subjective representation of that which we perceive as most objective or the 'essence' of objectivity.*Unlike a private fiction, math can be publicly validated. Because math is actually a minimalist aesthetic, it can only produce one dimensional drivers for public objects. For this reason,, a multi-aesthetic experience like human consciousness can never be assembled from single aesthetic effects. Mathematics is effective, and is the essence of effectiveness because it has no affect - no feeling, disposition, preference, or intention. All appearances of affect related to mathematics are derived from the private, multi-dimensional experience of math (1) rather than the (2) motive of math after it has been compiled and reduced to a single dimension public effect. Craig On Thursday, June 6, 2013 6:31:19 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#! -- 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 6/8/2013 5:37 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. That's your metaphysical assumption. It doesn't follow from QM. 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. In that case, how do you define 'physical'? Brent 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 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!
Stephen: I tried. I have difficulty in following fast talking videos in general, wouold appreciate to have it as URL somewhere. John Mikes On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#! -- 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!
Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen: I tried. I have difficulty in following fast talking videos in general, wouold appreciate to have it as URL somewhere. John Mikes On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote: For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#! -- 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 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.
Re: Fictionalism!
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 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!
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). 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.
