All mathematics is produced by physical objects (brains, computers). Therefore the laws of physics determine what theorems are possible, and mathematics has no existence independent of our universe.
-
Don't confuse the notion of a proof as an actual physical thing and the idealization (eg as a certain kind of tree). If we can talk about there being an infinite number of primes (even in a finite universe) why can't we talk about proofs (coded by nats) of arbitrary size?
-
-
Then what exactly is the content of your claim? Are you trying to deny that mathematical objects like the reals exist? But that doesn't follow (e.g. legal contracts exist but you can't reasonably identify a contract with any set/mereological fusion of atoms)?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I mean conversational implicature suggests you are saying something more than just the basic point that all facts can be grounded ('reduced') in physical facts (if u work in strong enough background logic all of set theory can be trivially be grounded in the empty collect of fact
-
See Sharon Berry's work showing you can translate claims about set theory (satisfying ZFC) to claims about what sentences are logically possible (eg into a modal logic that allows nested claims about what is log possible holding certain facts fixed).
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Sorry, don't mean to come off as combative. I quite probably will agree with you once I understand (damn Twitter char limits). But I'm just not getting what import u take that claim to have. First guess seems to have been mistaken so can you clarify?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.