From: nospam@example.net
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:
> D writes:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't doubt that the mind is a product of the brain; and that the
>>> brain is physical. Nor have I ever seriously doubted that the world
>>> is physical and real. I'm a naive realist by temperament. I like to
>>> call myself a "western scientific rationalist".
>>
>> Hooray, I'm not alone! ;)
>>
>>> All this seems rather unphilosophical. I guess I'm no philosopher. I
>>> just like talking with intelligent people, and having my mind
>>> stimulated by interesting speculation. Let the dialogue of reason
>>> continue. It's the breeding ground of new ideas and change.
>>
>> Well, it can be! Discuss with quantum physicists and then discuss if
>> you should or should not infer things from formulas that can never be
>> proven or shown evidence or disproven (choose your favourite). Are you
>> justified in believing the inferences?
>>
>
> Have you come across proof by induction? It proves that the sum of the
> first n numbers is n(n+1)/2, and that's true for any value of n. Now you
> must say it is nonsense because you cannot test any value of n. You
> cannot test infinity-1 for example. But I think you will say mathematics
> is in a separate compartment from physics. In which case I'll say that
> when you get to the quantum level, all you have is numbers.
And that is why I safely disregard any non-testable predictions or
inferences. It has no connection with reality, so as far as I am concerned
it is "null and void".
As per a previous message (I think) I also do not think a case can be made
for translating from numbers to human language as well.
You are correct about me keeping math distinct from physics as an
empirical science.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
