Le 09-mai-07, à 06:16, marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> It's true that consistency/precise alone doesn't imply
> existence, but they are factors that one can take into account.
>
OK. But consistency of a mathematical theory having sufficiently rich
models so that they support self-observing entities could be enough for
a notion of relative existence. I think physical existence is always of
that type, making it an indexical.
I disagree with those who think that any mathematical structure is a
"physical object". This is, imho, a category mistake. On the contrary
"physical existence" seems to be (with comp) an "inside" internal"
first person (plural) sum on a distinguished set of relatively defined
mathematical structures.
I will say more in a general sum up I intend to send (including the non
technical account of the why and how of the L interview.
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed May 09 2007 - 06:18:00 PDT