> On 22 Jul 2019, at 13:45, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:28 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, at 07:01, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com > <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:16 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> On 19 Jul 2019, at 22:47, Dan Sonik <danialso...@gmail.com >> <mailto:danialso...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >I think the main "leap of faith" that you make (and many others simply >>> >can't, because it >appears absurd) is somehow thinking that the completed >>> >computations are already "out >there,” >> >>> If you agree that 2+2=4 implies Ex(x+2 = 4), or more simply that the >>> equation x+2=0 has a solution in the integers, then you have to believe >>> that the computations all exists in arithmetic. Peano Arithmetical proves >>> the existence of those computations, like it proves the existence of the >>> prime number. >> >> >> This is your standard conflation of the Existential Quantifier over a domain >> with an ontology, Bruno. > > It is not a conflation. It is a necessary conclusion. > > It is a clear conflation - necessay for no one.
I don’t see the argument. > > >> Or, equivalently, your oft-repeated assertion that people confuse "2+2=4" >> with 2+2=4. > ? (Yes, some people just did it many times just recently, but I don’t see the > relation with the ontological existence). > > Don't you, now. Maybe that explains quite a lot of what you are missing. I don’t see an argument here. > > >> What you refer to here is the fact that the word "dog" is not actually a >> dog, namely a 4-legged mammal that barks and greets you affectionately at >> the door. That is, the name is not the same as the physical object. > > The name of an object is not the same as the object (physical or not). > >> But that distinction does not exist for arithmetic -- given nominalism (the >> fact that the integers are not independently existing objects), > > But that is not among my assumption. My assumption is (at the meta-level) > only YD and CT. > > Who said it was among your assumptions? I state it as a fact that must be > taken into account. Which facts? The primitive material existence? That is not a fact, but a string axiom in metaphysics, for which there has never been an atom of evidence. Just a 1500 years of conflation of the notion of matter, in which we all believe, and primary matter, which is what mechanism put in doubt. > > Then, from this we show that the TOE is “only” elementary arithmetic, or > combinators, or any first order specification of a universal machinery, or > universal machine. > > But that "proof" requires exactly the conflation of an existential quantifier > with an ontology. Counter examples: all the “E” used in all modes of the selves describes phenomenological existence, and none ontological existence, except the first (arithmetical truth). > The difference between "2+2=4" and 2+2=4 is that one is the name for the > other. But the name is all that exists, so these are identical. Even before Gödel, that was a big mistake. After Gödel, it means you have no idea of what the science of logic is studying. > >> the name "2+2=4" is the same thing as 2+2=4. > > That is a huge mistake (even for a nominalist). It is beyond ridiculous. > > That is your mistake, not mine. No. You are saying that “2+2=4” is the same as the fact that 2 + 2 is 4. > >> There is no object that differs from the name of the relationship expressed >> in 2+2=4. The claim "that all computations exist in arithmetic" has no >> content. > > Hmm… I *can* agree. It is a shortcut for the model (N, 0, +, *, s) satisfies > all the condition for the computations to be relatively run. > > The theory consisting of (N, 0, +, *, s) (N, 0, +, *, s) is not a theory. It is a structured set, called a model. > is sufficiently rich for one to write down all arithmetical computations. The sigma_1 truth is enough for this. N = (N, 0, +, *, s) is much more than that. To be sure. But neither the sigma_1 truth, nor N can be used by anyone to write down things. Those are realities able to satisfied, or not, some sentences made in a theory. > But that does not bring these computations into existence -- you require pen > and paper and intelligence, or something equivalent, to do that. The > computations do not exist in the abstract. You do philosophy at the place you are asked to not do philosophy. For AR, if you agree that x + 4 = 10 has a solution, that is enough to understand that you are emulated in arithmetic, and if you can explain me how a universal machine can distinguish by introspection an emulation of itself in arithmetic from an emulation in a “material” or “real” reality, you are welcome to elaborate on this. > >> Peano arithmetic no more "proves" the existence of these computations than >> it proves the existence of the moon. > > In the Aristotelian metaphysics, that might be given some sense, but you > cannot invoke your metaphysics in a work in metaphysics. > > Oh dear. So all your work is a futile waste of time, then, is it? You invoke > your metaphysics all the time. I reject your metaphysics in order to > criticize it, by adopting a more reasonable metaphysical attitude. But I made it precise and testable, where you invoke a notion never been made precise, nor used by any scientist, and just to avoid testing it, given that I show how to test your idea. > > That is the same, in metaphysics, as saying that the structure (N, +) refutes > group theory, in mathematics. > > No, it is not. Sarcasm is not your strong point, Bruno. Where is the difference. You invoke your metaphysical assumption to refute a theory which has different assumption. I don’t see any difference, and thus you accusation of sarcasme is futile. > > >>> in some sort of Platonic superspace. >> >> Not at all? Realism in arithmetic is only the statement that you have no >> objection to what is taught in primary school. >> >> There you go again, Bruno: re-defining terms so that you are always right. > > Ad hominem > > Bullying yet again, Bruno. On the contrary, accusing someone of something ridiculous is either straw man or bullying. If you have an argument, we are listening. > That only goes to show that you have no reasonable rebuttal of my point. > > + I only show how weak the realist assumption is. > >> "Realism", or more particularly, "arithmetical realism" means no such thing, >> Students are taught elementary calculations and multiplication tables in >> primary school, they are not taught philosophical platonism,. > > Of course. But we do metaphysics, and it is important to understand that the > metaphysics is in CT and “yes doctor”, not in the arithmetical realism, which > is used only to make sense of CT (needed to make mathematical precise sense > of “digital”). > > Without arithmetical realism (defined in the usual way, not as in > Brunospeak), you cannot get all computations as existing in arithmetic, and > the dovetailer does not ever get off the ground. So your metaphysics is > strongly built in from the start. So don't you dare criticize me for my > metaphysics. Do you agree with Euclid proof that there is an infinity of prime number? Or better: that there is no greatest prime number? Then if you think I use more than that, show it to me. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSf%2B4MFa0HGj3VwXYSyQLvDGB_fgxJKD-uW_2o3j9DA5Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSf%2B4MFa0HGj3VwXYSyQLvDGB_fgxJKD-uW_2o3j9DA5Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1DED083F-0A38-4CE1-9C67-530533A7A775%40ulb.ac.be.
