Idk I only have material evidence for finite processes. Seems to me that infinite things are the platonic ones.
@litgenstein can one be a finitist (properly so-called) without being a mathematical platonist?
to me the two are inseparable
-
-
-
But they very fact you’re defining an equivalence relation between physical objects and mathematical objects is itself the planotism I’m talking about
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’d think so: you can formulate the former such that it only concerns first order mathematical results (we don’t accept infinities in maths), and the latter is on a more meta level (the metaphysics of mathematical objects)
-
What’s the demarcation criterion for what we accept in maths? seems like anything logically consistent is equally good
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Platonic forms are the Fourier transform of physical forms. The more detail you add to one, the closer an approximation you get for the other - stack up epicycles to draw a chunk of granite, or chisel that rock into a sphere. Adding infinite detail is an *imaginary* action!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
seems to me like finitism is compatible with intuitionism: one might claim only finite mathematical objects exist because only they can be the product of some mental construction (which is always finite). and i don't think intuitionism counts as platonism
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.