Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King 


Infinity is not communicable.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-11-03, 12:33:49
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic


On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
 Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
 they have to be discovered. Numbers are such.

 Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable.


 Arithmetic or had to exist before man or
 the Big Bang woujld not have worked.

 I do not restrict entities with 1p to humanity.


-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-10 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Then you will get an incorrect motion,
which indeed would be very,very interesting.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/10/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:22:37 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/9/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Stephen P. King   

In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must  
happen as they're supposed to.  
Hi Roger, 

And this happens without an expectation of an explanation as to how it is 
the case? You see, I reject this idea because there is an entity that is being 
tacitly assumed to exist whose sole purpose is to determine what 'is supposed 
to happen'. 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-09 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must 
happen as they're supposed to. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/9/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:36:43 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/8/2012 6:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 You don't need to throw anything. 
 Parabolas are completely described mathematically. 

 OK, what is the connection between the particular case of throwing  
and a mathematical description? 

 
 
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
 11/8/2012 
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 
 
 
 - Receiving the following content - 
 From: Stephen P. King 
 Receiver: everything-list 
 Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25 
 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 
 
 
 On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 snip 
 This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of 
 actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one 
 dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be 
 associated to a parabola in space-time. 
 This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola 
 does not exist, as you will need to beg on the real action to 
 make your point. 
 
 Dear Bruno, 
 
 So do you agree that the relation goes both ways, which is to say 
 that the relation is symetrical? If the action of throwing an apple 
 implies a parabola, does the existence of the parabola alone define 
 the particular act of throwing the apple? 
 Throwing an apple === a parabola 
 
 But throwing a banana  a parabola, too. 
 
 
 Dear Bruno, 
 
 Can you not see that these two relations are not in a symmetrical 
 one-to-one relation? There are many actions that can be represented 
 by one and the same parabola. 
 Then why do you ask me if it is symmetrical. You make my point here. 
 
 
 Hi Bruno, 
 
 That is not my question. If you agree that the relation is not 
 symmetrical, then how can you use the existence of the parabola to 
 necessitate the particular case (throwing an apple) without further 
 explanation as to how that one special case is selected? We can show the 
 existence of a general class of entities far easier than the existence 
 of a particular entity! 
 
 
 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-08 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

You don't need to throw anything.
Parabolas are completely described mathematically.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/8/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
 On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 
 On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: 
 
 On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
 snip 
 
 This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of  
 actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one  
 dimension. The action of throwing an apple (action) can easily be  
 associated to a parabola in space-time. 
 This invalidate your point, even if you say that such parabola  
 does not exist, as you will need to beg on the real action to  
 make your point. 
 
 Dear Bruno, 
 
 So do you agree that the relation goes both ways, which is to say  
 that the relation is symetrical? If the action of throwing an apple  
 implies a parabola, does the existence of the parabola alone define  
 the particular act of throwing the apple? 
 
 Throwing an apple === a parabola 
 
 But throwing a banana  a parabola, too. 
 
 
 Dear Bruno, 
 
 Can you not see that these two relations are not in a symmetrical  
 one-to-one relation? There are many actions that can be represented  
 by one and the same parabola. 
 
 Then why do you ask me if it is symmetrical. You make my point here. 
 
 
Hi Bruno, 

 That is not my question. If you agree that the relation is not  
symmetrical, then how can you use the existence of the parabola to  
necessitate the particular case (throwing an apple) without further  
explanation as to how that one special case is selected? We can show the  
existence of a general class of entities far easier than the existence  
of a particular entity! 

--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen,

I wouldn't be too hard on Russell, at least as far as logic goes.
He had no way of knowing of Godel's proof. And Whitehead had 
joined him in the principia project.  Certainly two of the brightest 
minds that ever lived.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-04, 12:51:59 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote: 

 On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Hi Stephen P. King 
 
 Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not 
 infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's 
 metaphysics an enchanted land and confessed that 
 he hadn't a clue to what the meaning of pragmatism is. 
 
 
 Hi Roger, 
 
 Yeah, his star fell today, for me. 


Why. because he was wrong? But all serious people are wrong. To be  
wrong is a chance, and to be shown wrong is an even bigger chance. 

Russell was not annoyed by that, because his platonist intuition was  
preserved. he just learned that reason needed to learn modesty with  
respect to truth seeking, even on arithmetic and machine. 

Bruno 


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Science is based on and produces facts.
I don't think you would want to call these facts opinions
unless they referred to global warming.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-04, 11:37:58 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:  
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:  
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: 

  Horsefeathers! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any 
claim of that truth? What is the possible value of a statement that we can make 
no claims about? 

You are causing confusion by asking how the truth of a statement is separable 
from any claim of that truth. But claims and statements are the same thing - so 
of course they are not seperable.  Bruno is saying that the claim/statement is 
NOT the same as the fact that makes it true.  1+1=2 is a claim; it's the 
claim that 1+1=2. And that's a true claim; it's true that 1+1=2 whether you 
claim it or not. 


It is not about me or any other single individual, it is about the mutual 
agreement on the claim by many individuals, any one of which is irrelevant to 
the truth of a claim. 


Realism (arithmetical or other) is the position that the claim by EVERY one of 
which is irrelevant; the truth of the claim depends only whether it corresponds 
to a fact. 

Brent 


It your claim is true then truth is unknowable,  

I don't see how that follows.  When everyone claimed the Earth was flat did 
that make it unknowable that it was round?  If so how did anyone ever come know 
it? 


as facts become meaningless. Fact require independent verification to exist. 


That's directly contrary to the meaning of 'fact'.  I think you want the word 
'opinion'. 

Brent 


Dear Brent, 

Try reasoning about this in a way that is not limited to the assumption 
that observations are not just what humans do or think about. Reality is not 
just people populated. 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Do you know of any comp outputs that we could
examine ? I myself worship data.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-04, 11:55:27 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 



On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote: 


On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

Dear Bruno, 

No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the 
framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 
'truth' for a non-exitence entity. 



Brent already debunked this. The truth of a statement does not need the 
existence of the statement. You confuse again the truth of 1+1=2, with a 
possible claim of that truth, like 1+1=2. 



Horsefeathers! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from 
any claim of that truth?  


Explain me how the truth of an arithmetical truth depends on its being claimed 
or not. 

Hi Bruno, 

I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual 
instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claims that such 
and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to widen our thinking of how the 
potentials of acts is important. 








What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no claims about? 



We can make claim about them, but we don't need to do that for them being true 
or false. 

Who are the we that you refer to? 





Bruno 




--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Hmm, it's a fine point, but communicability implies symbols.
I believe that there were numbers before there were symbols for them. 
There have to be symbols if they are used to think with, 
but IMHO they were there before that in order for creation to 
happen systematically, according to some plan, and to have design.
I think that the One can do such things spontaneously or else
the One would be subservient to numbers.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/5/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:33:49 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
 Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented, 
 they have to be discovered. Numbers are such. 

 Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable. 

 
 Arithmetic or had to exist before man or 
 the Big Bang woujld not have worked. 

 I do not restrict entities with 1p to humanity. 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen 


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted land and confessed that
he hadn't a clue to what the meaning of pragmatism is.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/3/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-02, 17:03:42 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 



On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote: 


On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent 
notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions:  phi_0, 
phi_1, phi_2, ...  (the phi_i)  
Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a number.  

The number u is universal if phi_u(B(x,y)) = phi_x(y). And the equality means 
really that either both phi_u(B(x,y)) and  phi_x(y) are defined (number) and 
that they are equal, OR they are both undefined.  

In phi_u(B(x,y)) = phi_x(y), x is called the program, and y the data. u is the 
computer. u i said to emulate the program (machine, ...) x on the input y.  




   OK, but this does not answer my question. What is the ontological level 
mechanism that distinguishes the u and the x and the y from each other?  


The one you have chosen above. But let continue to use elementary arithmetic, 
as everyone learn it in school. So the answer is: elementary arithmetic.  


Dear Bruno,' 

If there is no entity to chose the elementary arithmetic, how is it chosen 
or even defined such that there exist arithmetic statements that can possibly 
be true or false?  




Nobody needs to do the choice, as the choice is irrelevant for the truth. If 
someone choose the combinators, the proof of 1+1= 2 will be very long, and a 
bit awkward, but the proof of KKK = K, will be very short. If someone chose 
elementary arithmetic, the proof of 1+1=2 will be very short (Liz found it on 
FOAR), but the proof that KKK = K, will be long and a bit awkward. 
The fact is that 1+1=2, and KKK=K, are true, independently of the choice of the 
theory, and indeed independently of the existence of the theories. 

Dear Bruno, 

No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the 
framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 
'truth' for a non-exitence entity. 




We can assume some special Realm or entity does the work of choosing the 
consistent set of arithmetical statements or, as I suggest, we can consider the 
totality of all possible physical worlds  


As long as you make your theory clearer, I can't understand what you mean by 
physical world, possible, totality, etc. 

I use the same definitions as other people use. I am not claiming a private 
language and/or set of definitions, even if I have tried to refine the usual 
definition more sharply than usual. 

Physical world: 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physical?q=Physical 

adjective 
1) relating to the body as opposed to the mind: 
a range of physical and mental challenges 
2) relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; 
tangible or concrete: 
the physical world 
3) relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally: 
physical laws 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world 

Those theorists who use the concept of possible worlds consider the actual 
world to be one of the many possible worlds. For each distinct way the world 
could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world; the actual 
world is the one we in fact live in. Among such theorists there is disagreement 
about the nature of possible worlds; their precise ontological status is 
disputed, and especially the difference, if any, in ontological status between 
the actual world and all the other possible worlds.  

Totality: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totality  


1: an aggregate amount : sum, whole 
 2a : the quality or state of being total : wholeness 





as the implementers of arithmetic statements and thus their provers. Possible 
physical worlds, taken as a single aggregate, is just as timeless and 
non-located as the Platonic Realm and yet we don't need any special pleading 
for us to believe in them. ;-) 



? 

I refuse to believe that you cannot make sense of what I wrote. Can you 
understand that I find your interpretation of Plato's Realm of Ideals to be 
incorrect? You seem to have read one book or taken one lecture on the subject 
and not read any more philosophical discussion of the ideas involved. I have 
asked you repeatedly to merely read Bertrand Russell's small book on philosophy 
- with is available on-line here http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html, 
but you seem unwilling to do that. Why

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

2012-11-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Stephen P. King  

Contingent truths (facts) are not always true.
They are constructed by inference or induction by 
man (a la Francis Bacon). Quantities are such.

Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
they have to be discovered. Numbers are such.

Arithmetic or had to exist before man or
the Big Bang woujld not have worked.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/3/2012  
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen 


- Receiving the following content -  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-03, 08:06:59 
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic 


On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

Dear Bruno, 

No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the 
framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 
'truth' for a non-exitence entity. 



Brent already debunked this. The truth of a statement does not need the 
existence of the statement. You confuse again the truth of 1+1=2, with a 
possible claim of that truth, like 1+1=2. 



Horsefeathers! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from 
any claim of that truth? What is the possible value of a statement that we can 
make no claims about? 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.