Fictionalism!

[Stephen Paul King]

For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TbNymweHW4E#!

[John Mikes]

Stephen:

I tried. I have difficulty in following fast talking videos in general, wouold appreciate to have it as URL somewhere. 

John Mikes

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King <step...@charter.net> wrote:

For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TbNymweHW4E#!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Stephen Paul King]

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.  I think this is wrong.  If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

" If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?"

Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true (ala Bruno).

--

[Bruno Marchal]

Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jun 2013, at 07:41, Stephen Paul King wrote:

" If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?"

Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true (ala Bruno).

Right, but like I said, I believe also that flying pink elephant are not pink. And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not exist, as far as I am consistent.

Bruno

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.  I think this is wrong.  If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[smi...@zonnet.nl]

They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within
conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on
this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that
is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.

Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense
atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this
topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such
planets.

Saibal

Citeren Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>:

>
> On 08 Jun 2013, at 07:41, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> " If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you
>> believe a flying pink elephant exists?"
>>
>> Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is
>> true (ala Bruno).
>
> Right, but like I said, I believe also that flying pink elephant are
> not pink. And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does
> not exist, as far as I am consistent.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>> Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this:
>>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
>>
>> A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e.
>> don't exist even though their complete description is self-

>> consistent. Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists

[Stephen Paul King]

Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully.

Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of &p. The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated.

The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*. There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bp&p..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

"And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not exist, as far as I am consistent."

Ah, Dear Bruno, you are not the only one that must agree that the elephant does not exist (unless you embrace that you are a consistent solipsist!)

[Stephen Paul King]

I agree, Saibal, but we don't really need to have an actual creature living and breathing creature; any simulation of an 'elephant' will do. All that matters is that the resources that support the 'creature' are verifiable in multiple independent ways.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM, <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.

Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets.

Saibal

Citeren Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>:

On 08 Jun 2013, at 07:41, Stephen Paul King wrote:

" If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you  believe a flying pink elephant exists?"

Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is  true (ala Bruno).

Right, but like I said, I believe also that flying pink elephant are  not pink. And so I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not  exist, as far as I am consistent.

Bruno

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e.  don't exist even though their complete description is self- consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists  seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe 17 is prime you  must believe 17 exists.  I think this is wrong.  If you believe that  a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink  elephant exists?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en .

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.  I think this is wrong.  If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?

Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist.

A pink elephant is pink by construction.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
> They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional
> physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in
> eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation
> laws will happen.
>
> Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there
> was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could
> have flying whales on such planets.

Could you identify them as elephants and whales by their DNA? Could the elephants be pink?

Brent

[John Mikes]

You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'. Question: would such "anything" be topic for this physicalist-based conventional EVERYTHING List? 

Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well? BTW - IMO  flying is not restricted to a conventionally called 'gaseous' medium, so 'swimming' can be considered an alternate for flying. - PINK Whales? <G>

Rem: of course 'they' all exist - if not otherwise: in our mind. 

JM

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/8/2013 12:03 PM, John Mikes wrote:

You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'.

That's my point.  Anything 'could be' if the only constraint is logical consistency (not self contradictory).  But in the sense of 'be' that requires a universe and observers there appear to be other, nomological constraints.  So there could be an animal that looks superficially like and elephant and lives on a planet who's atmosphere is as dense as water and is pink.  But it couldn't also have the same DNA and metabolic system as and elephant.  So it would only 'be a flying pink elephant' because we use the words to denote a certain similarity in appearance.

Brent

Question: would such "anything" be topic for this physicalist-based conventional EVERYTHING List? 

Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well? BTW - IMO  flying is not restricted to a conventionally called 'gaseous' medium, so 'swimming' can be considered an alternate for flying. - PINK Whales? <G>

Rem: of course 'they' all exist - if not otherwise: in our mind. 

JM

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.

Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets.

Could you identify them as elephants and whales by their DNA?  Could the elephants be pink?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date: 06/08/13

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Brent,

So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a simulated world be? Would it exist?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/8/2013 4:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a simulated world be? Would it exist?

It would exist in the computer simulation.  But would it be a "Pink Elephant" - that seems like a question of semantics.  We look at the screen and say, "That's a pink elephant." but we don't mean that literally.  Simulated people in the simulation may say, "That's a pink elephant." and mean it literally.

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

I am trying to make a point about existence...

[smi...@zonnet.nl]

But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that
it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. If one starts
from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical
system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a
generic multiverse scenario.

Saibal

Citeren meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>:

> On 6/8/2013 12:03 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>> You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with
>> imaginary oranges. Anything 'could be'.
>
> That's my point. Anything 'could be' if the only constraint is
> logical consistency (not self contradictory). But in the sense of
> 'be' that requires a universe and observers there appear to be other,
> nomological constraints. So there could be an animal that looks
> superficially like and elephant and lives on a planet who's
> atmosphere is as dense as water and is pink. But it couldn't also
> have the same DNA and metabolic system as and elephant. So it would
> only 'be a flying pink elephant' because we use the words to denote a
> certain similarity in appearance.
>
> Brent
>
>
>> Question: would such "anything" be topic for this physicalist-based
>> conventional EVERYTHING List?
>> Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as
>> well? BTW - IMO flying is not restricted to a conventionally called
>> 'gaseous' medium, so 'swimming' can be considered an alternate for
>> flying. - PINK Whales? <G>
>> Rem: of course 'they' all exist - if not otherwise: in our mind.
>> JM
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:04 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net

>> <mailto:meek...@verizon.net>> wrote:

>>
>> On 6/8/2013 5:23 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl <mailto:smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within
>> conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed
>> recently on this list.
>> In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything that
>> is not strictly
>> forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.
>>
>> Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an
>> extemely dense
>> atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago
>> about this topic, it was
>> suggested that you could have flying whales on such planets.
>>
>>
>> Could you identify them as elephants and whales by their DNA?
>> Could the elephants
>> be pink?
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
>> the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
>> it, send an email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:everything-list%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com

>> <mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com>.

>> Visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this message.

>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

>> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date: 06/08/13
>>
>

[Stephen Paul King]

smi...@zonnet.nl via googlegroups.com	8:37 PM (31 minutes ago)
to everything-list

But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a generic multiverse scenario.

Saibal

Hi Saibal,

Does existence mean "has a physical structure that can be measured by arbitrary observers"? If so, how can a number 'exist'?

    everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

    <mailto:everything-list%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.

    To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.

    Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>

Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date: 06/08/13

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

My complaint is that there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of existence!

[Craig Weinberg]

In my view, mathematics refers to two things:

1) A private experience of imagined sensory figures or symbols which represent quantitative values and linear reasoning.

2) When applied to public objects, math provides a logic which is derived from the common sense of spatial extension: fixed positions and linear process.

Math can be confusing because it is a subjective representation of that which we perceive as most objective or the 'essence' of objectivity. Unlike a private fiction, math can be publicly validated. Because math is actually a minimalist aesthetic, it can only produce one dimensional drivers for public objects. For this reason,, a multi-aesthetic experience like human consciousness can never be assembled from single aesthetic effects. Mathematics is effective, and is the essence of effectiveness because it has no affect - no feeling, disposition, preference, or intention. All appearances of affect related to mathematics are derived from the private, multi-dimensional experience of math (1) rather than the (2) motive of math after it has been compiled and reduced to a single dimension public effect.

Craig

[meekerdb]

On 6/8/2013 5:37 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
> But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it is not a
> logically consistent concept to begin with.

That's your metaphysical assumption. It doesn't follow from QM.

> If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can always find a physical
> system whose equations of motion realize it, it will then exist in a generic multiverse
> scenario.

In that case, how do you define 'physical'?

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jun 2013, at 14:23, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

> They exist if there is a consistent description of them. Even within
> conventional physics there is room for that, as discussed recently
> on this list. In the MWI or in eternal inflation models, everything
> that is not strictly forbidden by the conservation laws will happen.
>
> Flying pink elephants can e.g. exist on planets with an extemely
> dense atmosphere, there was a NGC documentary a few years ago about
> this topic, it was suggested that you could have flying whales on
> such planets.

I was taking about the flying pink elephants on our planet. If you
question was "does they exist in general", then, as any physical
object is the result of stable pattern supervening on infinities of
computation, we can just say "we don't know, probably in some rare
branches of the comp-quantum multiverse".

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully.

Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of &p.

?

p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief.

And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink.

The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence.

That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent.

If the sentence is inconsistent, then the model cannot be generated.

That makes sense!

The *Reality* of p is the by-product of mutual agreement of all possible testers/provers/interviewers of p, not some transcendent *Being*.

In Aristotle metaphysics, which is out the scope of my working hypothesis. You assume non-comp.

There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism.

because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp.

Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bp&p..

Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2013, at 03:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:

My complaint is that there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of existence!

Because it does not make sense. That's why we treat existence through quantification.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:23:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >A pink elephant is pink by construction.
>
> Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or
> show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not
> pink.
>
> Bruno
>
>

I'm wondering if this is really the best example to choose:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm

Now if we were to load up this calf into a jumbo jet, and take off, we
have an example of a flying pink elephant that is most definitely not
not pink (unless the lights are out :)).

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2013, at 02:37, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:

> But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means
> that it is not a logically consistent concept to begin with.

Assuming that everything consistent exist, but that depends on other
assumptions. In arithmetic, it is consistent that proof of falsity
exists, but they do not exist in the standard model of the axioms (in
which we work).

> If one starts from a logically consistent system, then one can
> always find a physical system whose equations of motion realize it,
> it will then exist in a generic multiverse scenario.

I doubt this. As I said Bf is consistent in PA, but it can be shown it
will be an infinite object, and it is not obviously realizable in a
physical reality.

Bruno

>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com

>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>>> Version: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3199/6394 - Release Date:
>>> 06/08/13
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2013, at 09:51, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 09:23:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> A pink elephant is pink by construction.
>>
>> Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or
>> show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not
>> pink.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>
> I'm wondering if this is really the best example to choose:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm
>
> Now if we were to load up this calf into a jumbo jet, and take off, we
> have an example of a flying pink elephant that is most definitely not
> not pink (unless the lights are out :)).

OK.
Of course I guess we meant elephant flying by their own means. Like
the famous flying pigs :)

Bruno

>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
>
>
> A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't
> exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.
> Everythingists apparently reject this idea. Platonists seem to equate
> 'true' with 'exists'. If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17
> exists. I think this is wrong. If you believe that a flying pink elephant
> is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?
>
>
>
> Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant
> can't exist.
>
>
> A pink elephant is pink by construction.
>
>
> Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic. Or show me
> a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink.

Bruno, how are flying pink elephants any different from things that I
remember but am not experiencing this very moment? For example, I've
been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an
abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium.
That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being
pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No?

Telmo.

[Bruno Marchal]

OK.

I should have said "By logic applied to our consensual reality". Then
the difference is that in case someone tell you that Brussels doesn't
exist, you can still give him some procideure to assess the fact,
(with trains, planes or Goggle earth, for example), which is not the
case for the "flying pig elephant", (with a consensual definition of
what that can be).

In my opinion, "fictionalism" does not make sense. We just need to
agree on what we need to assume at the start, and then be clear on
what exist, in which sense which can be relative and differ from
different views.

Assuming comp, I argued that we need to assume no more than 0 and the
successors, and the terms x + y and x * y.
The rest follows semantically (truth will "go" must farer than what
any machine/number will ever been able to conceive publicly).

Eventually, the question is never does "flying pink elephant" exist,
but what is the probability to experience the seeing of one, and what
is the probability you can share that experience with others.

Pink elephants are the paradigmatic hallucination of the alcohol
withdrawal. But I have never seen an explicit report on that, and
besides, they are not "known" as being flying besides such
hallucinations can't help to make them existing in the consensual
local sense).

Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical
existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of "fiction". It
is Aristotelianism.

Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical
notion, and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter
(in all senses of the word).

A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^2 = 2, that is
fiction.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I add explanation. Here you describe two 1p events. They are similar,
although I guess you don't have precise memory of having actually seen
a Flying Pink Elephant in your life, except in cartoon or dreams.

> For example, I've
> been to Brussels but I'm not there right now. Brussels is an
> abstraction in my mind, but I believe it's the capital of Belgium.
> That's part of the Brussels abstraction, in the same sense that being
> pink is part of the flying pink elephant abstraction. No?

I do not dispute that fact. Pink elephant are pink.

But the pink elephant on this planet happens also to be brown rampant
worms. And I'm afraid that is only a classical logician's joke.

(x = Flying Pink Elephant) -> (x = Brown Rampant Worms) is true on
this planet because (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, on
this planet (I think), and in classical logic f implies everything.

If you want,

"(x = Flying Pink Elephant) -> (x = Brown Rampant Worms)" is an
expression equivalent

to "f -> <whatever>" which is a tautology. It is the way to
diplomatically assert that we do not believe in the existence of some
x which would be equal to a flying pig elephant. The popular saying
"with "ifs" and "buts" you can put Paris in a bottle express a similar
thing.

Bruno

>
> Telmo.
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully. Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of &p. ? p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief. And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink.

**

[SPK] What is it that makes p "a true fact"? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle.

**

 

The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence. That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent.

**

[SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability.

**

There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism. because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp.

** [SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality. **

Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bp&p.. Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory.

** [SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow a theory of minds. It only allows for a single mind.

[Bruno Marchal]

Stephen, there is a problem with the format. Could you please to reformat it as it is impossible to reply to it. Thanks.

I will answer asap, but probably not today.

best,

Bruno

[Stephen Paul King]

[SPKold] Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully.

[BM]Your test for 'reality' is unphysical because it assumes that *infinite computations that consume no resources* can be accessed for confirmation of &p.

?
p is for a true fact. It makes no sense to ask a confirmation, which applies only to a theory or a belief.

And I was not proposing a test. Just doing the usal classical logician joke. I can give evidence that all flying elephant on this planet, in this branch of the wave are pink and not pink.
**
[SPK] What is it that makes p "a true fact"? If we follow fictionalism, it is true if and only if none of those that can conceive of p have also a counterexample of p. This seems, crudely, to be a form of the law of excluded middle.
**
 

[SPKold] The argument is simple: a proof of a sentence is equivalent to a computation of the model of the sentence.

[BM] That does not make sense to me. Proof is model independent.

**
[SPK] If a model of p does not exist, is a proof of p possible? I do not see how! My concept of a pink elephant is a model. The experience of my reading this sentence is a model. But I am thinking of model outside of the restricted definition of a model within math proper. As I see things, independence is not existential separability.
**

[BM] There there is a flaw in the premise of Arithmetic realism.

because you beg the question by assume a physical reality, and thus non comp.
**
[SPK] No, I accept that the physical reality that I experience is a construction as per COMP, it supervenes on many minds and is almost independent of any one of them (in the limit of infinitely many minds). AR assumes that reality is completely independent of minds and thus has a problem: it cannot explain how many minds can agree on the existence of a physical reality.
**

[SPKold] Thus I present 'fictionalism' as a way to illustrate my counterexample to your claim of 'absolute truth' for Bp&p..

[BM] Assuming Aristotle, so again it is not an argument for non validity, but a proposal for a different theory.

**
[SPK] Yes, it is a different theory that does not necessarily contradict COMP. In my thinking COMP is too narrow a theory of minds. It only allows for a single mind.

[meekerdb]

On 6/9/2013 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.  I think this is wrong.  If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?

Flying pink elephants are pink and not pink. That's why flying pink elephant can't exist.

A pink elephant is pink by construction.

Exact. But the flying pink elephant are also not pink. By logic.

A flying pink elephant that is not pink would be a contradiction in terms.  That's logic.

Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink.

That's not logic, that empiricism.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/9/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of "fiction".

Yes.  Fictionalism is probably right about mathematics - but it's also right about physics.

Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion,

All the more reason to suppose it is just an invention.

and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter (in all senses of the word).

A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^{^2} = 2, that is fiction.

No, that is false in arithmetic.

Brent

[John Mikes]

Brent: thanx for the text, I downloaded it and still read it. Interesting.

Fun:

it says  about math objects that they are abstract. (e.g. No 3) In Hungary children are taught that an abstract means:non tangible, e.i. not touchable by bare hands (Hungarian has a better such expression). Jokingly: glowing-hot iron is abstract. . 

[meekerdb]

On 6/7/2013 10:41 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

" If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?"

Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true (ala Bruno).

The belief "a flying pink elephant is pink" is tautologically true

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/

A fictionalist account holds that some things are fictional, i.e. don't exist even though their complete description is self-consistent.  Everythingists apparently reject this idea.  Platonists seem to equate 'true' with 'exists'.  If you believe it's true that 17 is prime you must believe 17 exists.    If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a flying pink elephant exists?  I think this is wrong.

Brent

[Telmo Menezes]

Ok, I'm convinced.

Telmo.

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Bruno Marchal]

Exact. That's why a flying pink elephant that is not pink does not exist.

Or show me a flying pink elephant living on this planet which isn't not pink.

That's not logic, that empiricism.

Exact. That's why I don't take seriously flying pink elephant, and assume them not existing, making the logical pun above possible.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 09 Jun 2013, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/9/2013 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Then fictionalism can make sense only if we assume some basic physical existence, or reality, as the not explicit contrary of "fiction".

Yes.  Fictionalism is probably right about mathematics - but it's also right about physics.

With fiction = illusion, that's the case with physics when assuming comp, indeed. But usually fiction are supposed to be not true.

Elementary arithmetic seems conceptually simpler than any physical notion,

All the more reason to suppose it is just an invention.

By who?

Cf comp makes humans an "invention" of numbers.

and with comp I think there is not much choice in the matter (in all senses of the word).

A pair of two non null integers x y such that (x/y)^{^2} = 2, that is fiction.

No, that is false in arithmetic.

That's what I meant.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

But (x = Flying Pink Elephant) is false for all x, is an empirical proposition. Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was that true propositions, like "Flying pink elephants are pink" don't imply the existence of anything; just like "17 is prime" doesn't imply the existence of 17.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree.

> Not one you can prove from arithmetic or logic. But the point was
> that true propositions, like "Flying pink elephants are pink" don't
> imply the existence of anything; just like "17 is prime" doesn't
> imply the existence of 17.

But how do you formalize "flying pink elephant are pink" ?

I am simpled minded, so I formalized it in a first order logical
formula:

if x is an elephant which is pink and which is flying then x is pink.

This does not entail Ex( x = an elephant which is pink and which is
flying)

For the same reason that:

"if x is a prime number, which is even, and bigger that 3" then x is
bigger than 3"

does not entail Ex(x = even prime number bigger than 3).

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
>
>>> and in classical logic f implies everything.
>>>
>>> If you want,
>>>
>>> "(x = Flying Pink Elephant) -> (x = Brown Rampant Worms)"
>>> is an
>>> expression equivalent
>>>
>>> to "f -> <whatever>" which is a tautology. It is the way to
>>> diplomatically
>>> assert that we do not believe in the existence of some x which
>>> would be
>>> equal to a flying pig elephant. The popular saying "with "ifs" and
>>> "buts"
>>> you can put Paris in a bottle express a similar thing.
>> Ok, I'm convinced.
>>
>> Telmo.
>

[meekerdb]

Actually it does. Let y="x is a prime number which is even and bigger than three". Then,
if y anything; in classical logic everything follows from a contradiction. But we were
talking about the metalogical relation of true/false and fictional/real. I don't think
two are parallel. It's true that 17 is prime - but it doesn't follow that 17 is real.
It's true that Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street, but it doesn't follow that he
existed. Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a
contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but
"There is a pink elephant." is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the
case that everything follows from a falsehood.

Brent

[Stephen Paul King]

So numbers do not exist?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

So numbers do not exist?

They don't exist like elephants do.  They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

The difference comes from the fact that in arithmetic e can prove Ex(x
= 17), but we cannot prove in your "theory" that Ex(= Sherlock Holmes).

> Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a
> contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink
> elephant doesn't exist, but "There is a pink elephant." is not a
> contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that
> everything follows from a falsehood.

It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does
implies everything.

f -> q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t V q.

"p -> everything" in all words where p is false, even if there are
worlds were p is true.

Bruno



>
> Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:

So numbers do not exist?

Why?

In most elementary (first order) theory of arithmetic, you can prove the following:

Ex(x = 0)

Ex(x = s(0))

Ex(x = s(s(0)))

etc.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not.

In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

But "E" in those two propositions don't have the same meaning. In the first it means that
the axioms of arithmetic imply there is an x=17. In the second it means there was person
who had all or most of the characteristics described in Conan Doyle's stories.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But a contradiction is
>> dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink elephant doesn't exist, but "There is a
>> pink elephant." is not a contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case
>> that everything follows from a falsehood.
>
> It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does implies everything.

In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good reasoning. "There is a
pink elephant." may mean no more than "That looks like an elephant painted pink." It's
not an axiom of a formal system. I deliberately included "flying" because it makes the
identification as "elephant" problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an
elephant painted pink, we'd certainly call it a "pink elephant". But if we found an
animal that looked like an elephant with wings that could fly, we'd only call it a "flying
elephant" metaphorically.

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/11/2013 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Jun 2013, at 22:49, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/10/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

So numbers do not exist?

They don't exist like elephants do.  They may exist like Christmas or Sherlock Homes do.

Is Sherlock Holmes a human? Please give us your theory of human, so that we can discuss if he exists or not.

In some reasonable theory of humans, humans possess a body decomposable locally in biochemical components. This is not the case for fictional characters.

Exactly.  But fictional characters can satisfy existential propositions: Ex(x=friend of Dr. Watson), because "E" is context dependent.

Brent

[Jason Resch]

From the video: "What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good and very complete"

I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism.  To believe math is a human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know about math comes from the starting assumptions we choose.  We now know this to be untrue, our picture (or anyone's picture) of math will always be incomplete, there is always more math out there to discover.  We make progress in math the same way we do in all the other sciences, making observations, drawing conclusions, seeing if our theories are consistent, etc.  Over time we develop our accepted axioms the same way we develop our fundamental physical theories.

We observe and explore other mathematical structures/universes through the tool of simulation (either using our brains or using computers), and that is how information about other universes enters our own.

Jason

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Paul King <step...@charter.net> wrote:

For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TbNymweHW4E#!

[John Mikes]

Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? 

JM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

Sadly, John, many people don't get the existence question!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/_ONFIcyntY4/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

It has the same meaning in different theories. Without giving me your
theory of humans, "Ex(x = Sherlock" has no meaning, except referring
to consensual reality, but this is what we want to explain. You beg
the question. In consensual reality it is just reasonable to say that
Sherlock does exist only as a fictional character. But that is not
what we discuss.

In the comp TOE Ex (x = sherlock) is as false as Ex (x = Brent),
because Brent and Sherlock are (different probably) sort of emerging
reality. Only natural numbers exist in the sense of "ExP(x)". So in
the comp TOE, only numbers are NOT fiction, if basic existence is the
criteria. Brent and Sherlock are different type of fiction.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course something described by a contradiction can't exist. But
>>> a contradiction is dependent on an axiomatic system. So a pink
>>> elephant doesn't exist, but "There is a pink elephant." is not a
>>> contradiction; it's just a falsehood and it's not the case that
>>> everything follows from a falsehood.
>>
>> It is the case that everything follows from a falsehood. (0=1) does
>> implies everything.
>
> In classical logic. But logic is just supposed to formalize good
> reasoning.

Classical logic formalizes machines or numbers understanding of
Platonia.

> "There is a pink elephant." may mean no more than "That looks like
> an elephant painted pink." It's not an axiom of a formal system. I
> deliberately included "flying" because it makes the identification
> as "elephant" problematic. If we found an animal that looks like an
> elephant painted pink, we'd certainly call it a "pink elephant".
> But if we found an animal that looked like an elephant with wings
> that could fly, we'd only call it a "flying elephant" metaphorically.

My problem was just with fictionalism in math. It is fake sort of
philosophy. We must avoid words like "real" or "fiction", just agree
on which theory we are willing to use.

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
>>
>> f -> q is a tautology. It is equivalent with ~f V p. that is with t
>> V q.
>>
>> "p -> everything" in all words where p is false, even if there are
>> worlds were p is true.
>

[Bruno Marchal]

But in the comp TOE, there are many notion of emerging existence. None are fiction, they have just different meanings; The question, when working in some TOE, consists in being clear on the basic ontology, with a clear (first order) sense for "Ex".

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Jun 2013, at 19:04, Jason Resch wrote:

From the video: "What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good and very complete"

I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism.  To believe math is a human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know about math comes from the starting assumptions we choose.  We now know this to be untrue, our picture (or anyone's picture) of math will always be incomplete, there is always more math out there to discover.  We make progress in math the same way we do in all the other sciences, making observations, drawing conclusions, seeing if our theories are consistent, etc.  Over time we develop our accepted axioms the same way we develop our fundamental physical theories.

We observe and explore other mathematical structures/universes through the tool of simulation (either using our brains or using computers), and that is how information about other universes enters our own.

I agree completely. I do take incompleteness, or the consequences of Church thesis as illustrating very well the "objectivity" of arithmetic.

Above arithmetic, I have no problem to classify some construct as being epistemological, but the exact frontier between ontology and epistemology is unimportant, as the inside views will have an objective arithmetical behavior, even when not arithmetical. And this is well justified by the fact that although we can do easily intuitive number theory without ever formalizing the theory (like number theorist), this is no more the case for set theory, whose intuitive part is just inconsistent, and when it is formalized, the communicable part belongs to arithmetic.

So I agree with your for arithmetic, and above arithmetic it is a question of convention.

Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically "meta-"mathematics.

Bruno

Jason

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Stephen Paul King <step...@charter.net> wrote:

For your entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TbNymweHW4E#!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:

Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est) scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants? 

Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of existence, which is not obvious.

Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Bruno

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

Telmo.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
>> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>>
>>
>>
>> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the
>> question of
>> existence, which is not obvious.
>> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying
>> elephants at all.
>
> Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
> flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

You will not help John!

But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by "elephant".
On that smaller planet elephant might be called "bird".

Can a dinosaur fly? Yes, they are called bird, but they are descendent
of dinosaurs. But here some genomic can be invoked for establishing
some identity or parental relation.

With enough "IF" you can deduce what you want. If some dictator
renamed the bird as "elephant", then surely elephant can fly.

Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2013, at 11:20, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
>>> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question
>>> of
>>> existence, which is not obvious.
>>> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at
>>> all.
>>
>>
>> Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
>> flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?
>
>
> You will not help John!

I know, couldn't resist :)

> But the problem with your answer, is: what do you mean by "elephant". On
> that smaller planet elephant might be called "bird".

Well, maybe something that triggers the classification of "elephant"
on a majority of human brains? Something that looks like this:
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg237/unbelivablybored/Montagebilledecopy.jpg

>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> Visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Alberto G. Corona]

This is the documentary mentioned

Flying wales at 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU

my pleasure

2013/6/12 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>

--
Alberto.

[Alberto G. Corona]

This one more informative and without annoying music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3m32AUwUM

2013/6/12 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

[Bruno Marchal]

FAKE!

:)

By the way I would classify this as an eagle (suffering from
elephantiasis).

Bruno

>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>> Google Groups
>>>> "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>> send an
>>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>>> .

>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an
>>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2013 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Arithmetic is large, and I do not know of any theorem in math which is not a theorem in arithmetic, except in mathematical logic, and universal algebra, which are typically "meta-"mathematics.

What about theorems in calculus and topology?

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

But in what sense would they be elephants?  That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up.

Brent

[Jason Resch]

Things are either consistently defined or they are not.  Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.

Example:  Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant?

I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be.

Jason

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2013 5:42 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

This is the documentary mentioned

Flying wales at 1:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLRijkhDqRU

my pleasure

I've flown over Wales.  :-)

Brent

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

But in what sense would they be elephants?  That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up.

Things are either consistently defined or they are not.  Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.

Example:  Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant?

I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be.

Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language.

Brent

[Jason Resch]

Which language and described by whom?

[meekerdb]

On 6/12/2013 2:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

But in what sense would they be elephants?  That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up.

Things are either consistently defined or they are not.  Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.

Example:  Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant?

I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be.

Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language.

Which language and described by whom?

Mathematics, arithmetic, english...  People who belong to Everything lists.

Brent

[Bruno Marchal]

Most, if not all, are theorems of arithmetic in disguise. Few math go really beyond PI-1 or Pi_2 arithmetical complexity, when you study their logical complexity. Only category and set theory go much beyond, and genuinely go beyond arithmetical complexity. 

I could say more on this when I have more time, but it requires some amount of mathematical logic.

Macintyre wrote papers on this, and Torkel Franzen made a similar point in his book "inexhaustibility".

Some other people makes this points trivial, but only by a *misuse* of comp, note.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jun 2013, at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

But in what sense would they be elephants?  That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up.

Things are either consistently defined or they are not.  Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.

Example:  Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant?

I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be.

With comp the cardinality of our reality is absolutely undecidable. I think that the core issue is in finding a simple theory, with the less ontological commitment as possible,  and the fewest possible of assumptions, explaining the observation, but also the fist person, consciousness, etc. Here QM is an amazing jewel, but with comp it has to be derived from the math of the first person (hopefully and reasonably plural). 

Bruno

Jason

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 Jun 2013, at 23:57, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:

On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
> scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
>
>
>
> Those are test cases, extreme case, to argue more easily on the question of
> existence, which is not obvious.
> Of course we are not discussing on the existence of flying elephants at all.

Maybe on a smaller planet with less gravity or a denser atmosphere
flying elephants would be a viable evolutionary niche?

But in what sense would they be elephants?  That's my point: 'elephant' is a category we make up.

Things are either consistently defined or they are not.  Here though, I think the problem is not necessarily inconstency but lack of clarity.

Example:  Is an elephant in a cargo plane at 10,000 feet not a flying elephant?

I think We are wasting our time on matters of language when the core issue is the diffetence between how big some of us consider reality to be.

Some take reality to be whatever can be described in language.

Which language and described by whom?

I would say the fictionalists.

They will say that Sherlock and Santa Klauss exists, because you can predicate them in some meaningful sentences. 

The realist believes in some reality, that is assumed it explicitly, with basic elements obeying laws, and it will study the complex 1p/3p relations which might ensue, and (at least try) to generate the many notions of existence of that.

I would say the "TOE" goal is to find the simplest theory explaining and classifying the many notions of existence possible.

But that's exactly what the ideally correct Lôbian universal machine discovers when looking inward, the 8 nuances  between truth (p), provable (Bp), knowable (Bp & p), observable (Bp & Dt), sensible (Bp a Dt & p).

There are different precise mathematics for "existence" in each such (modal, arithmetical) logic. 

Sensible existence would be, with p arithmetical sigma_1 sentences,  []<>Ex []<>F(x), with []p = Bp & Dt & p). (B = Gödel's beweisbar arithmetical predicate, Dp = ~B~p, <>p = ~[]~p, and p a sigma_1 sentences).

Bruno

Jason

Brent

-- 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/