- #1

- 2

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter tautological
- Start date

- #1

- 2

- 0

- #2

Stephen Tashi

Science Advisor

- 7,713

- 1,519

The set of all possible streams of brain activity arising from all possible configurations of all possible neurons with all possible connections is finite....

There is no evidence for that since we don't know how the brain works. And neural activity consists of processes that take place in an apparent continuum of time and space, not in some finite discrete setting.

I think you should post threads that attempt to relate physics to logic in a different section of the forum because threads like this are usually locked or moved when they appear in the physics or math sections. Try the the PF Lounge.

- #3

nomadreid

Gold Member

- 1,545

- 167

(a) syntactically, finite symbols for syntactical statements such as the symbol N in the axiom of infinity in ZF or its negation, respectively, or a statement such as "A set A such that there exists a bijection between the A and a proper subset of A", or

(b) semantically, the interpretation in a model of such symbols.

As long as there is no provable contradiction from these usages, then if they are useful, we keep them. From the viewpoint of a Platonist who does not believe that infinite quantities actually exist (whatever "exist" means), "infinite" may be thought of in the same way as school children are unfortunately often taught to think of complex numbers or infinitesimals: as something that is simply an imaginary go-between between a problem stated in real numbers and the solution stated in real numbers. There are also Platonists who believe that infinite quantities exist, who would then just tell you not to get the finger that points to the moon mixed up with the moon: the human brain could be finite, but it could point (via model theory) to something that was infinite. Finally, from the viewpoint of a staunch Formalist, even the interpretations are just symbols to be pushed around, and the symbols need not actually point at anything.

So, you pick your mixture of formalist and platonist (I don't think anyone is a pure formalist or a pure platonist any more), and go from there. A good starting point is to purge the question of the physics aspects which Stephen Tashi objected to by delving a bit into the theory of finite models and restating your question in those terms.

- #4

- 487

- 3

The human mind can't construct the set of natural numbers. But it can construct the concept of the set of natural numbers. The concept of the infinite is finite.

It is true that the set of thoughts ever thought is finite.

- #5

nomadreid

Gold Member

- 1,545

- 167

Well said, ImaLooser!

- #6

- 22,129

- 3,298

Share: