Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)

On 3/24/2025 9:01 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/24/2025 05:39 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/24/2025 7:53 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

No, you still haven't confronted yourself
that the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,

>
If a typical working mathematician,
on Sunday, affirms the Intermediate Value Theorem
as a formalist, and,
on weekdays, affirms the Intermdiate Value Theorem
as a Platonist,
what is that vacillates?
>

that it results then
for mathematics the theory both platonism and formalism,
and for physics a very thorough realism.

>
I don't seem to be able to parse that.

>
No?
>
Is it because you broke it in the middle then
don't have any sort of context and memory?

That doesn't seem to me to be a likely reason.
Not to brag, but
I can remember things which I've read
even more than three or four sentences earlier.
That you (RF) think that's a possible explanation
might offer insight into
why you (RF) quote 300 lines in order to
respond to the last three lines, and
treat the other 297 lines as though they don't exist.
There is no shame in having a memory problem.
However, it does present a pretty puzzle
for someone trying to communicate something
longer than a few lines.

I'd imagine it's difficult being a sort
of broken mirror/record and may well lead
to resentment those interrupting the continuity.

Hey! I've got an idea.
What if,
when someone asks you to explain what you're saying,
you explain what you're saying.
It's so crazy, it just might work.
----

the inconstancy of either platonism or formalism
is merely self-deceiving vacillation,

If a typical working mathematician,
on Sundays, affirms the Intermediate Value Theorem
as a formalist, and,
on weekdays, affirms the Intermdiate Value Theorem
as a Platonist,
what is it that vacillates?