XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 24/02/2026 3:54 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/23/2026 04:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> 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.
Except that "etymology" is a word, and thus part of the language you are
discussing - or in this case - misrepresenting.
>> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
