- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Flammarion <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT)

On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:

*> On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote:
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> > On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
*

*> >> On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote:
*

*>
*

*> >>> 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or
*

*> >>> generated
*

*> >>> by something else that does
*

*> >>> 2. I ontologically exist
*

*> >>> 3. According to you, I am generated by the UD
*

*> >>> 4. Therefore the UD must ontologically exist.
*

*>
*

*> >>> Step 04 is really step 00 which I have worked backwards
*

*> >>> to here
*

*>
*

*> >> 5. But the UD exists only mathematically.
*

*>
*

*> >> Thus, ontological existence = mathematical existence.
*

*>
*

*> >>> There is no usual one, since there is no one agreed ontology
*

*> >>> of mathematics.
*

*>
*

*> >> For sets and functions, you may be right. For numbers, there is a
*

*> >> general mathematical agreement.
*

*>
*

*> > No there isn't.
*

*>
*

*> What is the disagreement?
*

The age old debate about whether numbers exist

*> >> There may be no philosophical
*

*> >> argument, but this is not relevant to undersatnd the non
*

*> >> philosophical
*

*> >> reasoning.
*

*>
*

*> > Ontology is philosophy. You can't settle ontological quesitons
*

*> > with mathematical proofs.
*

*>
*

*> Philosophy, or theology. OK. But comp is an assumption in cognitive-
*

*> science/philosophy/theology.
*

No. *CTM* is. "Comp* is your own fusion of CTM with

Platonism

*> It is an assumption that a form of
*

*> reincarnation is possible.
*

*> This is not pure mathematics. UDA belongs
*

*> to the intersection of cognitive and physic science. UDA is not purely
*

*> mathematical.
*

It is not going anywhere without some ontological

assumptions either. since it has an ontological conclusion.

*> >>> You are aware. are you not, that philosophers
*

*> >>> and mathematicians are still writing books and papers attacking
*

*> >>> and defending Platonism and other approaches?
*

*>
*

*> >> Platonism is used by both philosopher and mathematician as something
*

*> >> far more general than arithmetical realism, on which all
*

*> >> mathematicians agree.
*

*>
*

*> > I am not concerned with argument about how many pixies exist.
*

*>
*

*> So a doubt about the existence of a large cardinal in set theory rise
*

*> a doubt about the existence of seven?
*

No. A doubt about the ontological existence of seven leads

to a doubt about the rest.

*> I have use arithmetical realism, because I have never met any
*

*> difficulty, among mathematicians, physicians and computer scientist.
*

*> Nor even with philosophers, except some which just dodge the issues of
*

*> showing what they miss in the argument.
*

Hmm. Well, you would say that, wouldn't you.

*> My work has been indeed rejected in Brussels, by philsophers. But it
*

*> has been defended a s a PhD thesis by a jury with mathematician,
*

*> computer scientist, physician (yes, not physicist, but doctor!).
*

But it is a philosophical thesis, since its conclusion is the nature

of existence.

*> > The point remains: there *is* a debate so there is *not* a standard
*

*> > ontology.
*

*>
*

*> >> It is believed explcitly by many physicists too,
*

*> >> like David Deutsch, Roger Penrose, and those who use math in physics.
*

*>
*

*> > I never said no-on beliieves Platonism. I said some
*

*> > people belive other things. Therefore it is contentious,
*

*> > therefore it is needs jsutification.
*

*>
*

*> It is more efficacious to see if the consequence of comp, believed by
*

*> many, are verified by nature.
*

It's the consequences of CTM+Platonism

*> >>>> By comp, the ontic
*

*> >>>> theory of everything is shown to be any theory in which I can
*

*> >>>> represent the computable function. The very weak Robinson
*

*> >>>> Arithmetic
*

*> >>>> is already enough.
*

*>
*

*> >>> I am not interested in haggling over which pixies exist.
*

*>
*

*> >> This may be the root of your problem.
*

*>
*

*> >>>> comp = CTM.
*

*>
*

*> >>> It clearly isn't by the defintiion you gave in
*

*> >>> your SANE paper.
*

*>
*

*> >> All right. As I said: comp is CTM + "2 + 02 = 4".
*

*>
*

*> > Nope, mere truth does not buy the immaterial existence of a UD
*

*>
*

*> But from "2+2 = 4" and CT, you can derive the existence of UD.
*

Only the mathematical existence.

*> >>> Classical logic is just a formal rule.
*

*>
*

*> >> It depends on the realm in which you apply classical logic. In
*

*> >> computer science people admit that a running program will either
*

*> >> halt,
*

*> >> or not halt, even in case we don't know. This is a non formal use of
*

*> >> classical logic.
*

*>
*

*> > It still does not demonstrate the immaterial existence of computers
*

*> > no-one has built.
*

*>
*

*> No one has ever build the prime numbers.
*

No. They were not built. they did not spontaneously spring

into being, they do not exist at all.

*> >>> Bivalence is not Platonism
*

*>
*

*> >> Exactly. This is one more reason to distinguish carefully
*

*> >> "arithmetical realism" (bivalence in the realm of numbers), and
*

*> >> Platonism (something huge in philosophy and theology).
*

*>
*

*> > Even more reason to distinguish between AR qua truth and AR qua
*

*> > existence.
*

*>
*

*> Yes, and I use only AR qua truth.
*

Then you cannot come to any valid conclusion about my existence.

*> I may ask you what are your evidence for a primary matter, or for your
*

*> notion of AR qua physical existence.
*

You dismiss matterial existence assuming Platonic existence

I dismiss Platonic existene assuming material existence.

I may not have a proof, but neither do you.

*> >>> So what? If I am material the reasoning is correct. Since the
*

*> >>> alternatives
*

*> >>> to my being material are inherently unlikely, my reasoning is still
*

*> >>> *probably* correct.
*

*>
*

*> >> You are telling me that if you are material, then you are material.
*

*>
*

*> > I am telling you I do not have to give equal weight to
*

*> > every hypothesis.
*

*>
*

*> >>>> I begin to believe what Jesse and David says: you are dodging the
*

*> >>>> issue.
*

*>
*

*> >>> What issue?
*

*>
*

*> >> CTM and weak materialism are epistemologically incompabible.
*

*>
*

*> > Not demonstrated.
*

*>
*

*> You have pointed on invisible or implicit errors only, up to now.
*

*> In your preceding post, you even argue somehow that you cannot show me
*

*> the errors because they are invisible.
*

*>
*

*> At least you don't argue against the first person indeterminacy
*

*> (unlike Chalmers who pretends that after a duplication between W and M
*

*> you feel yourself to be simultaneously at the two places).
*

*>
*

*> I think you have difficulties with MGA, but if you are interested we
*

*> can go back to the MGA posts, and you could explain precisely what you
*

*> feel to be missing.
*

*>
*

*> 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 Mon Aug 31 2009 - 10:31:34 PDT

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT)

On 28 Aug, 16:08, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:

The age old debate about whether numbers exist

No. *CTM* is. "Comp* is your own fusion of CTM with

Platonism

It is not going anywhere without some ontological

assumptions either. since it has an ontological conclusion.

No. A doubt about the ontological existence of seven leads

to a doubt about the rest.

Hmm. Well, you would say that, wouldn't you.

But it is a philosophical thesis, since its conclusion is the nature

of existence.

It's the consequences of CTM+Platonism

Only the mathematical existence.

No. They were not built. they did not spontaneously spring

into being, they do not exist at all.

Then you cannot come to any valid conclusion about my existence.

You dismiss matterial existence assuming Platonic existence

I dismiss Platonic existene assuming material existence.

I may not have a proof, but neither do you.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

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 Mon Aug 31 2009 - 10:31:34 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST
*