XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 23/02/2026 5:50 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/22/2026 10:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> 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.
> Your attitude reminds of Russell's in a sense, Bertrand Russell's,
> about the "isolation" and "significance", of theories.
If that was intended to be flattering, it didn't work.
> Basically
> it's the hypocrisy of the invincible ignorance. Hypocrisy:
> hypo- / not enough, -crisy / criticality. Etymology of course
> is of the elements of language and thus linguistics, for people
> who are textual thinkers, and where language naturally composes.
My ignorance gets defeated at regular intervals, but there's a whole
universe of stuff that I'm going to stay ignorant about, and my
potential areas of ignorance get larger every day with people publishing
stuff that I'm never going to get to grips with.
> Something like the grab-bag tool-kit of differential equations
> helps show that the conflicting criteria of convergence,
> for examples, makes for always checking the outcomes for sanity.
>
> Then, for realists and "Aristotlean realism" and the like,
> it sort of results that numbers are ideals. As a sort of
> practicing electrical engineer, surely you know that there's
> a distinction between "ideal" and "practical" electrical
> components, while according to "the theory" there are ideals.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
