This is acutally interesting, because I was reading "The Future of Set Theory" by Shelah yesterday because I was just wasting time online. In there he at some point tries to defend how one can both be a platonist AND Not seem to believe that everything has an answer. Maybe I misread or something though, I didn't read that section very carefully.
I guess I'm just generally finding your platonist test dicdes things into two simple of a dichotomy.
Of course, in the typically pramatist sort of why, what's the difference if an "ultimate truth" we don't actually know exists, if all we can really expect to come up with is good approximations anyways.
I've never really been convinced that mathematics is some innate part of the universe, since so much of the way we percieve and use it is based on how we think anyway.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krja
(no subject)
Date: 2004-04-16 10:30 am (UTC)I guess I'm just generally finding your platonist test dicdes things into two simple of a dichotomy.
Of course, in the typically pramatist sort of why, what's the difference if an "ultimate truth" we don't actually know exists, if all we can really expect to come up with is good approximations anyways.
I've never really been convinced that mathematics is some innate part of the universe, since so much of the way we percieve and use it is based on how we think anyway.