[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 268 KB, 600x600, 1701473571302271.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15909937 No.15909937 [Reply] [Original]

How does model theory NOT prove platonism?

>> No.15909955

How did Plato do it? He was literally the basedest Gigachad who ever lived.
>explains the relation between math and reality
>explains the relation between soul and body
>describes the perfect political organization of a state
>invents logic to own the sophists
>inspired Euclid, Archimedes and basically every great thinker in the history of humanity
>creates a framework of epistemology and ontology eternally unrefuted

>> No.15910048
File: 79 KB, 410x410, trippy art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15910048

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

>We conclude by observing that computation is akin to the "sequel of mathematics", where the arrow of time is introduced. If mathematics don't exist out there in a Platonic sense, neither do computations. Trying to bootstrap reality from computation might be akin to trying to get an explanation for world politics in terms of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers". It can be illuminating, and at times incisive, but it ultimately lacks the necessary ontological grounding to be an appropriate "base" for empirical phenomena. And while cellular automata abstractions can have a lot of explanatory power, there is no indication that reality at the most fundamental can neatly emerge out of a cellular automata without trickery. Ultimately, reality might instead be explained in terms of principles like Zero Information, Energy Minimization, and Extrema, which in some cases might be uncomputable.

>> No.15910100

>>15909937
>>describes the perfect political organization of a state
Wasn't Plato involved in shady politics that led to Socrates' end?

>> No.15910145

>there surely is something odd about thinking with Frege and Russell that
a systematized logic is primarily aiming to regiment a special class of ultrageneral truths. Isn’t logic at bottom about good and bad reasoning practices, about what makes for a good proof? Shouldn’t its prime concern be the correct styles of valid inference? And hence, shouldn’t a formalized logic highlight rules of valid proof-building (perhaps as in a natural deduction system) rather than stressing logical truths (as logical axioms)?