XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 22/02/2026 12:34 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 02/21/2026 05:20 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.   
      
      
      
   > One "true" theory should suffice.   
      
   Theories about theories are a waste of time.   
      
   > Then for that being for matters of perfection, to which   
   > agreeably that human beings as above machine and animal   
   > have minds yet are finite, imperfect creatures, is for   
   > idealistic perfection.   
      
   Humans are animals, and animals are mechanisms. Perfection is a target,   
   but most people who try to attain any kind of perfection lose sight of   
   the fact that their perceptions are imperfect, and indulge in   
   unfortunate self-deception.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)