On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> What generates Platonia? >> >> >> >> Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can >> generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent. >> >> Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex (in >> Turing or logical sense). It is the minimum that we have to assume to start. >> > > Saying that elementary arithmetic is the minimum that we have to start > doesn't make sense to me. Elementary arithmetic depends on many less > complex expectations of sequence, identity, position, motivation, etc. I > keep repeating this but I don't think that you are willing to consider it > scientifically. > > > To define, is a reasonable precise sense, "expectations", "sequence", > "identity", "position", or "motivation" (which I doubt is a simple notion) > you need arithmetic. >
How can arithmetic exist without sequence and then define sequence? It is the same capacity to reason which tells me that 5-3=2 which tells me that sequence can exist without arithmetic but arithmetic cannot exist without sequence. > It is, I think, your unwillingness to study a bit of math and logic which > prevents you from seeing this. > Just the opposite. It is your unwillingness to question the supremacy of math and logic which prevents you from even seeing that there is something to question. > You get a lot about the numbers with few axioms written in first order > language. > I don't see why any axioms would be possible. Where do they come from? Who is writing them? > I doubt you can define "expectation of sequence" in such a simple way. > How can you doubt it? > How will you define "sequence" without mentioning some function from N > (the set of natural numbers) to some set? > With rhythmic patterns and pointing - the way that everyone learns to count. A horse can understand sequence without a formal definition derived from set theory. What you are saying sounds to me like 'you cannot make an apple unless you ask an apple pie how to do it'. > > Again, I remind you that "simple" means "simple in the 3p sharable sense", > not "simple" in the 1p personal experiential sense. > Why is that not an arbitrary bias? If I don't allow the possibility of 3p without 1p, then simplicity can only be 1p. > All scientists agree on the arithmetic axioms, > If that's true, its an argument from authority, and it could be the reason why all scientists fail to solve the hard problem. (which is exactly my argument). > and I have to almost lie to myself to fake me into doubting them. > I can't remember what it was like before I learned arithmetic, but I can still understand that we all live for years without those notions. There is at least one culture today that has no arithmetic. > Something like "expectation" might already have a different meaning for > spiders, for different humans, etc. > Either way, it is undeniably more primitive than arithmetic in my view. Craig > Bruno > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
