I’d like to clarify the statement about Platonism. What I’m saying is that finitists subscribe, at least loosely, to the notion that numbers have an existence beyond that of definition.
Show this thread
I think the main thing that mathematical finitists get wrong is that numbers “actually” exist—let alone ought to be a certain way.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As a finitist, I just prefer my theories stay within the realm of things hat can be explicitly exhibited. It's helpful that I can do lots of calculus in the context of this perspective tho, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time.
-
What do you mean by “explicitly exhibited”
- 18 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think that numbers are human creations, there is no mathematics in the universe, but humans have created mathematics to understand the universe.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think that finitism and platonism are necessarily connected in such a way. Mathematical infinities "actually existing" is perfectly compatible with many forms of mathematical platonism (regardless of whether one agrees with mathematical platonism or not).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Numbers are subjective
-
Yeah, subjectively awesome! :D
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My antisemantic disposition is reinforced.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The number of objects is a property of a physical system exactly like the amount of gram of mass is a property of a physical system. A number exists just like a gram exists.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.