[Fis] Math, math, math!

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Koichiro,


On 15 Nov 2017, at 01:02, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:

> On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziarturo at libero.it wrote:
>
> I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e.,  
> testable
> mathematical predictions.
>
> [KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone.  
> There is
> no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present  
> accessible in the
> present tense.

I am glad to hear that. Not all mathematicians would agree, but all  
would agree that this statement is true for what Brouwer called once  
"the separable part of mathematics", which is very first order  
elementary arithmetic without induction.

With induction, we have problem with the "ultra-intuitionist", who  
tend to disbelieve in the everywhere definiteness of the exponential  
function. Those are very rare, but some are very good mathematiciian  
and are followed rather closely (like when Nelson claimed to have a  
proof of the inconsistency of Peano Arithmetic, this has been  
thoroughly investigated until an error was shown, as Nelson admitted:  
but he seems to still believe that PA is inconsistent).



> Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including
> biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the
> present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings.

I am not sure of this. "we" the humans are certainly "historical  
beings", but as de Chardin put it, we might be spiritual being living  
the human experiences, among others. Time might be an indexical, like  
with Mechanism in cognitive science, or like in General Relativity.



> That
> must look quite uneasy to mathematicians.

Most mathematicians just don't do neither physics, nor psychology,  
still less theology or metaphysics. They hide their motivation, and  
they often forget the motivations of those who brought the tools and  
results they like to develop. Very few logicians seem to be aware that  
the rise of mathematical logic started from a dispute between  
unitarian and trinitarian, and the will to make (non-confessional)  
theology more rigorously (Benjamin Peirce (the father of Charles.S.  
Peirce), de Morgan, Boole, even Lewis Carroll ...).



> One loophole for making it
> tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the  
> mathematical
> notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the  
> finished
> record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the  
> present.
> Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what  
> could be
> persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense,  
> though
> somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete
> particulars.

Some people argue that a truth like 2+2=4 is eternal, and true  
everywhere. But this does not make sense, as the temporal and locality  
attribute pertain on physical object. At best we might say that 2+2=4  
is out of time and place. Such truth is out of the category of things  
to which time and place/position does not applied. It makes no sense  
to ask "since when 2 is even?", except poetically or in some  
colloquial manner.

Now, this does not mean that in the context of *some* metaphysical  
theory/assumption, some possible links between the physical reality  
and the mathematical (or arithmetical) reality cannot be derived. I  
have shown, in particular, that if a brain is Turing emulable, then we  
have to explain the physical appearances, including time and space, as  
emerging in the form of stable first person plural discourse from a  
statistic on all computations (which are realized in all  
interpretations of tiny fragment of Arithmetic, when we assume/accept  
the Church-Turing thesis). That is testable, and it works up to now,  
as we recover an intuitionist subject for the "soul/knower", and a  
quantum logic for the "observable/predictable".

Best Regards,

Bruno




>
>   Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
> tozziarturo at libero.it
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM
> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math!
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable  
> journals,
> for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific
> reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions.
>
>
> Sent from Libero Mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/