Re: Platonism

From: Eray Ozkural exa (examachine_at_gmail.com)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: 3 Dec 2004 11:22:38 -0800

stephen@nomail.com wrote in message news:<coku30$co9$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> In comp.theory Eray Ozkural exa <examachine@gmail.com> wrote:
> : tchow@lsa.umich.edu wrote in message news:<41acdd3d$0$556$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
> :> In article <vp4rd.123769$5K2.55275@attbi_s03>,
> :> patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote:
> :> >I don't see how he can doubt their existence. Has he not created that
> :> >very existence in the world of his interpretation by the very behavior
> :> >that you describe above ? If you build a house, can you deny its existence?
> :>
> :> Let's be careful to distinguish between "the set of integers exists" and
> :> "integers exist." Nelson, as far as I can tell, has no problem with the
> :> "existence" of specific small integers. That's different from saying that
> :> the completed infinite set of all integers exists.
>
> : And what reason is there to think that a completed set of integers
> : exist, or that imagining such an actual infinity will have any use in
> : any science? (And if it is not useful in science, what can it have a
> : use in?)
>
> I thought you were interested in the philosophy of mathematics?
> Has someone declared that the only valid philosophy of
> mathematics is one devoted exclusively to science?

A materialist and positivist as myself would underline science.

A spiritualist would disregard it. There are lots of nasty titles that
fall under this umbrella term, and you would be vastly wrong to think
that philosophy of mathematics is independent from philosophy of mind,
language and science. From a phil. of mind viewpoint, you are peddling
nothing but the naivest of all theories: substance dualism. That's
what mathematical Platonism boils down to: rejecting that the mind is
mechanical and physical.

No doubt those who are professed only in an outmoded version of
philosophy of mathematics will not see the beautiful connection
between science and mathematics underlined by Russell and others.
Neither will you understand the traditions of empiricism, positivism,
functionalism, instrumentalism, computationalism etc. You really
should venture into the greatly diversified world of analytic
philosophy to appreciate what I am saying.

Especially science. By declaring *independence* from science, you are
not doing a good thing at all. You are just calling forth the ancient
mysticism of Pythagoras and Islamic philosophers. You have no idea
what you are saying. It's quite pathetic, what you and Chapman are
saying in reality.

I could slightly alter your sentence like this:
  Has someone declared that the only valid philosophy of mind is one
devoted exclusively to science?

I would say YES. And there is no reason why you should think
mathematics demands an explanation distinct from the nature of mental.
That would be so very misled: assuming that mathematics is not first
and foremost a mental enterprise. Why do you call Godel a genius? Was
he merely *lucky*? No. He *thought* deep, that's what doing
mathematics is: deep thought, and patient inquiry, questioning,
trying, imagining, creating. It is no accident that this is also the
way of the scientist.

If you want to turn this into the way of the priest, then I will see
no harm in condemning such a backwards turn.

Thanks, 

--
Eray Ozkural
Loading