哲学论证 (4-2)

惊艳是惊艳，但是这个评价中表达的观点可能还是太具争议性了（而且可能会冒犯一群人），所以只在采访中以访谈形式出现，加上采访时间点离Maddy退休日期不远，所以这个观点没有以论文形式更详尽地展现出来[6]，实在是有些可惜。（更新：lol，我大错特错，这个观点在Second Philosophy: a Naturalistic Method第四章第2节有展开）

哲学论文：3:AM:There's a puzzle that seems to arise from your approach isn't there. If maths isn’t to be grounded on metaphysical truths then how come it’s so fruitful in the concrete world? How do you approach this so-called miraculous aspect of maths? Is yours a sort of

Yabloistfictionalism?

PM:To be honest, I'm not sure how grounding math in a world of abstracta, causally isolated from us, would help explain why it works so well in applications. In any case, my take on the so-called ‘miracle of applied mathematics’ is that it's not really so

miraculous.Years ago, when I was thinking hard about this problem, I happened to hear a lecture by Persi Diaconison coincidence. Diaconis is a statistician by trade, but also a

magician and a well-known debunker of psychic phenomena. Some of that debunking involves psychological and statistical observations about what appear to be striking coincidences. One is the ‘new word' phenomena: you learn a new word, then suddenly, by absurd coincidence, you hear it three times in the next 24 hours! But of course it isn’t an absurd coincidence; now that you know the word, you notice it. Similarly, when you discover a mathematical tool that can solve a certain kind of problem, you tend to notice when

数学联邦政治世界观提示您：看后求收藏（同人小说网http://tongren.me），接着再看更方便。