On 03/23/2025 10:33 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 3/22/2025 9:36 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/22/2025 01:07 PM, Moebius wrote:
Nuff said (concerning the context). :-P
Does it live in
a mathematical platonist's real universe
of all the mathematical objects?
Or rather, mathematical platonism's?
⎛ Most writers on the subject seem to agree
⎜ that the typical working mathematician is
⎜ a Platonist on weekdays and
⎜ a formalist on Sundays.
⎝
— Philip J. Davis.
Oh, what about a mathematical universe hypothesis?
Combining a strong mathematical platonism with
a strong mathematical universe hypothesis and
a strong logicist positivism, is there "A Theory",
at all?
The Theory?
On 3/23/2025 11:23 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/23/2025 10:33 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
⎜ It seems unreasonable for us to have
⎜ what could be called 'knowledge' about
⎜ conditions billions of years earlier or later
⎜ or billions of light.years away.
⎜ I put that down to mathematical argument
⎜ which reaches far, far beyond
⎜ anything our intuition might have to say,
⎜ but, because it's mathematical,
⎜ we know is imperishably bonded to this shape
⎝ which fits our much less extensive experience.
Oh, what about a mathematical universe hypothesis?
It might have something to do with fractals...
Perhaps, well, sometimes I think
we (our universe) might be contained within
a black hole residing inside our parent universe.
Two massive black holes might of merged in our parent,
there merger was "fertile",
and created us, perhaps?.
Our universe.
This is just thinking out loud here for fun.
Whatever! ;^)
On 03/24/2025 08:45 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
Of course neither Big Bang nor Steady State
are falsifiable according to the usual tenets of
never violating time symmetry in physics and
not yet having found the end of the sidewalk or
Flat-Earthers.
Either fit the data, any time, ....
On 03/24/2025 07:24 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 3/23/2025 2:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Combining a strong mathematical platonism with
a strong mathematical universe hypothesis and
a strong logicist positivism, is there "A Theory",
at all?
Yes.
The Theory?
No.
So, you'll aver that there is a theory,
then that there's a greater theory,
then that there's a greater theory, and so on, in
all higher orders of theory, in the limit complete?
A sort of "continuum limit" of theory?
The Theory?
On 03/24/2025 11:20 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
No, you still haven't confronted yourself
that the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,
that it results then
for mathematics the theory both platonism and formalism,
and for physics a very thorough realism.
On 03/24/2025 11:20 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
A big criticism of using falsifiability
to determine what deserves the label 'science'
is that
a theory can pretty much always be saved
by tweaking in various ways.
(See also Ptolemaic epicycles.)
It seems that a theory can be saved
_and it will be saved_
until a better theory comes along.
Physics is not like mathematics.
Can't trust tweakers.
Any new scientific theory (of all the theories)
must not be falsified by _any_ of the data,
or it's just an application in a sub-field,
not "the theory".
not "the theory".
On 03/24/2025 05:34 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
Considering [...]
about the "severe abstraction" of
the "mechanical reduction",
has that when things get _conflated_
that aren't necessarily,
like the linear and rotational in mechanics or
the arithmetic and algebra,
it's a _false_ conceit.
Your Zeno still isn't going anywhere,
On 03/24/2025 05:39 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 3/24/2025 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
No, you still haven't confronted yourself
that the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,
If a typical working mathematician,
on Sunday, affirms the Intermediate Value Theorem
as a formalist, and,
on weekdays, affirms the Intermdiate Value Theorem
as a Platonist,
what is that vacillates?
that it results then
for mathematics the theory both platonism and formalism,
and for physics a very thorough realism.
I don't seem to be able to parse that.
No?
Is it because you broke it in the middle then
don't have any sort of context and memory?
I'd imagine it's difficult being a sort
of broken mirror/record and may well lead
to resentment those interrupting the continuity.
the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,
On 03/25/2025 09:40 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
Platonists need not eschew formalism,
Platonists need not eschew formalism,
nor for that matter positivism and logicism,
indeed the objects of the theory are sort of the same.
Long ago I adopted the style
to not cut the context because
it's too easy for it to be mutilated.
the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,
If a typical working mathematician,
on Sundays, affirms the Intermediate Value Theorem
as a formalist, and,
on weekdays, affirms the Intermdiate Value Theorem
as a Platonist,
what is it that vacillates?
For example,
when a formalist platonist arrives at
axiomless natural deduction,
and then a formalist non-platonist
forgets or ignores that,
that's vacillation.
On 3/24/2025 8:45 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 3/23/2025 10:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Perhaps, well, sometimes I think
we (our universe) might be contained within
a black hole residing inside our parent universe.
Two massive black holes might of merged in our parent,
there merger was "fertile",
and created us, perhaps?.
Our universe.
This is just thinking out loud here for fun.
Whatever! ;^)
Suppose physics permits, in some universes,
a really advanced technology to bud off
baby universes, with some variation in constants.
Those life.friendly, civilization.friendly universes
would provide the lion's share of universes.
That's intended to explain why our universe
is so friendly to us. Pick a random universe.
Since (assuming blablablah) most are friendly,
you've most likely picked a friendly universe.
Thanks, Jim.
Some of my thoughts I sometimes have
wrt this "infinite fractal cosmic tree"
revolve around, well,
it was never created simply because it was always there?
There is no chicken and egg problem?
Too out there?
Jim Burns wrote :
On 3/26/2025 6:11 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Too out there?
Not at all.
You are in alignment with
the Steady State hypothesis,
which is approximately:
Everything is the way it is because
it's always been that way.
Before the Big Bang was the frontrunner
in the best.theory.sweepstakes,
there was the Steady State.
It wasn't even so long ago that
it was frontrunner.
Einstein inserted the term Λgₘₙ into
his General Relativity field equations
Rₘₙ - ½Rgₘₙ + Λgₘₙ = 8πG/c⁴⋅Tₘₙ
in order for them to have Steady State solutions.
Later,
when evidence was found of a hot early universe,
Einstein is said to have called Λgₘₙ
his greatest blunder.
So,
although today the evidence points away from
the Steady State universe,
it didn't always point away.
If I were typing this even a week ago,
I would be reciting some very definite numbers
alleged to describe our universe.
However, I've recently learned that
we've learned that
the universe is expanding unevenly,
so
there's a whole lot of re.thinking going on.
I'm not sure what to tell you.
Or, as Ross Finlayson would probably say,
Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 183:44:31 |
| Calls: | 9,705 |
| Files: | 13,737 |
| Messages: | 6,179,548 |