[Wittrs] Re: Nominalism / Neil
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:04:03 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote:
> We all tend to think of Cartesian algebras and variables,
> that we now look at as Lambda binding, that Frege called
> unsaturated, that all sound like we have invented something
> abstract, mathematical, what have you. The x in x2 + y2 = c
> "behaves" for just those points on the circle. But so does
> something as simple as a compass.
The equation x2 + y2 = c will get it exactly right. No matter how
precisely you can set the compasses, you will never get it exactly
right. And that ignores the irregularities on the paper surface and in
the pencil lead. You would never be able to determine pi to a million
decimal places using the circle drawn by the compasses (not that it is
all that valuable to have pi to a million places).
So, yes, there is a difference between idealized machines and real
physical machines. Note that Turing's Halting problem makes no sense
for real physical machines - real machines all halt.
> Note that it is not that we are so interested in enfranchising
> machines, the question is always, what indeed is a thought, what
> is an analysis?
When asking "what is a thought", we could be asking about what takes
place when thoughts occur, or we could be asking about what is the
content of the thought. The first of those presumably has an answer
that is real (part of the physical world), while the second might be
something ideal and not at all in this world.
Regards,
Neil
Other related posts:
