Georges Quénot wrote:
> peterdjones.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> peterdjones.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> >>> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
> >>> mathematical,
> >> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
> >> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
> >> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
> >> adopt it either.
> >>
> >> But can you make a difference between adopting it and
> >> being able to consider that it might make sense (whether
> >> it is true or not) and conduct (or follow) reflections
> >> in a context in which it would be conjectured as true?
> >
> > I don't think Mathematical Monism makes sense
>
> OK. Just consider that it does make sense to some people.
>
> > (to be precise it
> > is either incoherent, in asserting that only some mathematical
> > objects exist, or inconsistent with observation in asserting that
> > they all do)..
>
> I do not see how it can be inconsistent with observation.
If every mathematical structure exists , then mathematical structures
consisting
of a counterpart of me plus a "Harry Potter" universe exist. Yet this
is not
observed. Of course that might be coincidence.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Mar 18 2006 - 10:01:32 PST