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

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:05:35 +0100

Hi Stephen,

SPK:

*>What I would very much like to understand is why your modelizations only
*

*>seem to include the natural numbers.
*

BM:

Because I use the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science.

It means that relatively to my most probable neighborhood I am determined

by a number: my program or godel number if you want. It is the number which

make it possible to survive with a digital brain/body, or to survive a

reconstitution.

SPK:

*>Why do you not seem to allow for the
*

*>entire Cantorian hierarchy of ordinals and cardinals?
*

I allow them. Since Godel we know that even to study properties of

natural numbers we need the whole Cantor Paradise.

(Like complex number are indispensable in pure number theory).

Note that in set theory cardinality notion are relative. A set can be

uncountable as seen in a model, and countable as seen in another model.

SPK:

*>This, of course, neglects the fundamental problem that some people have,
*

*>such as myself, with the use of Platonia to "explain away" quantities
*

*>such as mass, charge and angular momentum.
*

BM:

I do not explain them away. I explain them and similar terms.

It is the *whole* purpose of the UDA and AUDA.

SPK:

*>What I would like to know, in addition to the above
*

*>question, is how do you answer Stephen Hawking's (?) question: "What breaths
*

*>fire into the equations"? or my version: How are the solutions to all
*

*>possible mathematical equations computed?
*

BM:

I don't need the hypothesis of "breath". I guess you believe in the need

of a material-causal universe computing the solutions of the mathematical

equations. But, once you accept a minimal amount of arithmetical realism,

all the relevant computations exist arithmetically. Look at Maudlin 1989

paper to understand that this is enough, and, even, cannot be ameliorated,

once you assume the comp. hyp.

Regards,

Bruno

Received on Wed Feb 12 2003 - 04:05:49 PST

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:05:35 +0100

Hi Stephen,

SPK:

BM:

Because I use the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science.

It means that relatively to my most probable neighborhood I am determined

by a number: my program or godel number if you want. It is the number which

make it possible to survive with a digital brain/body, or to survive a

reconstitution.

SPK:

I allow them. Since Godel we know that even to study properties of

natural numbers we need the whole Cantor Paradise.

(Like complex number are indispensable in pure number theory).

Note that in set theory cardinality notion are relative. A set can be

uncountable as seen in a model, and countable as seen in another model.

SPK:

BM:

I do not explain them away. I explain them and similar terms.

It is the *whole* purpose of the UDA and AUDA.

SPK:

BM:

I don't need the hypothesis of "breath". I guess you believe in the need

of a material-causal universe computing the solutions of the mathematical

equations. But, once you accept a minimal amount of arithmetical realism,

all the relevant computations exist arithmetically. Look at Maudlin 1989

paper to understand that this is enough, and, even, cannot be ameliorated,

once you assume the comp. hyp.

Regards,

Bruno

Received on Wed Feb 12 2003 - 04:05:49 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST
*