On 20 Jan 2013, at 19:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2013 1:15:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in
the
> mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some
kind
> of underlying conputation)
Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why
3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic
arithmetic takes some work).
Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum
of distance.
In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit
exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth. You
are unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem
for comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure
"mathematics exists" make any sense to me.
I am only unclear in why you would think that I am unclear.
Of course.
My understanding is that arithmetic truth is one facet of pattern
recognition,
Can you define "pattern recognition" without arithmetic or equivalent?
I doubt.
We have a different methodology. I start from what people agree on,
like simple arithmetic, and computationalism, then i derive from this.
But you start from your intuition.
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you cannot
derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence of
computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If you
believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like a
literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition and
multiplication in the sense I would wait for.
which is the universal primitive upon which both ideal and material
realism depends. Because arithmetic is a private representation of
other private representations, it has no public existence which is
independent of sense,
Assuming what?
nor could any configuration of figures and functions give rise to
any form of sense were they hypothetically able to exist
independently of sense.
Please don't hesitate to let me know what seems unclear about that.
In difficult interdisciplinary domain, actually even just in the
foundation of math, you can be clear only by working axiomatically or
semi-axiomatically, but this needs a kind of work that you have
already rejected in previous discussion, so I cannot insist on this.
It is just sad that your fuzzy theory makes you think that machine
cannot support thinking.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
