XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>> On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea   
   >>>>> that elements of the "domain of discourse   
   >>>>> the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,   
   >>>>> and furthermore that there's an eventual theory   
   >>>>> where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,   
   >>>>> complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one   
   >>>>> theory at all as universal why naturally according   
   >>>>> to reason then that for objects to exist that   
   >>>>> mathematical objects exist.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural   
   >>>> languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but   
   >>>> there are exceptions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> "Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,   
   >>>>> so commonly that it's even lower-cased like   
   >>>>> "euclidean" or "archimedean", then that   
   >>>>> "amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism   
   >>>>> then logicist positivism is at best "weak",   
   >>>>> as basically for the invincible ignorance of   
   >>>>> inductive inference.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Logical positivism is a waste of time.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your   
   >>>> observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably   
   >>>> better than any other.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for   
   >>>>> the inter-objective as it were, makes for a   
   >>>>> "strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective   
   >>>>> as it is, then for something like a "strong   
   >>>>> mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects   
   >>>>> really are their numbers and names, not that we   
   >>>>> known them, yet that they "are".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty   
   >>>> shock when nuclear fission showed up.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> ... And that their relations are mathematical,   
   >>>>> so that basically mathematics "is" physics,   
   >>>>> the elements of the domain of discourse the   
   >>>>> universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"   
   >>>>> physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could   
   >>>> observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in   
   >>>> the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able   
   >>>> to invent a better one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Thus there are necessary accounts of both   
   >>>>> the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.   
   >>>>> All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".   
   >>>>> The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions   
   >>>>> of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.   
   >>>>> (Here "mass".)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the   
   >>>> only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only   
   >>>> one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >> A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows the   
   >> paths we see.   
   >>   
   >> Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.   
   >>   
   >> That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be   
   >> over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.   
   >   
   > You are a naive positivist, I see.   
   > Not unsuprising, for an engineer.   
      
   It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity   
   to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the   
   engineering tool-kit.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)