XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
