XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   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,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)