On 04 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
>
> > ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
> > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
> > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical
> > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
> > backwards
>
> I have never said that numbers exists because there are true
> mathematical statements asserting their existence.
> I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such
> truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to
> even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a
> universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like with
> the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists.
There is no usual sense of "exists" as the material I posted
demonstrates.
You have to be assuming that the existence of the UD is literal
and Platonic since you care concluding that I am beign generated by
it and
my existeince is not merely metaphorical. The arguemnt doesn't go
through
otherwise.
> I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are
> part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic
> way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not
> depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save
> your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA.
IF formalism is true there is no UD. It simply doesn't exist
and doesn't genarate anything.
>And you don't need
> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.
Of course I need a real machine for a real interview.
> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp.
Mathematical existence is metaphorical if mathematical existence is
literal.
Their existence is literal if mathematical existence is metaphorical.
> May be very fertile
> one. Like galaxies and brains.
>
> Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate
> basic entities and relations in theories which are always
> hypothetical.
False. There is nothing hypothetical about ingeous rock.
> I am just honest making explicit my use of the non
> constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm.
>
> You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I
> 'm afraid.
>
> 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 Fri Sep 11 2009 - 08:45:21 PDT