[082349872349872]

Could you please briefly explain the indispensibility argument? (this being the first time I've run across the term; although if it's some philosophical thing I'm afraid I'm only interested in it as far as I'd be in the theological creation of the universe*)

My view of the relation between maths and physics is set out in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39220159 , and because we go from physics to maths (f) and then back from maths to physics (f^-1), we can conjugate with any g,g^-1 pair, meaning that on the maths side we might as well mod out by isomorphics (only care about the partial order of equivalence classes of the preorder of structures)

(Similarly, we should find that we only care about the equivalence class [singular] of isomorphic realities [plural]?)

---

* this is not to say that I'm not interested; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39886966

Assuming a God who creates Creations, do we wind up with a best possible (principal) Creation? all possible (perhaps trivially so) Creations? if there is a set of Creations created, are they directed? Theologically, what happens if we have an infinite number of finite Creations, each an appropriate approximation, and we pass to their supremum?

[nyssos]

> Could you please briefly explain the indispensibility argument?

An extremely rough caricature:

- Scientific realists claim that we should believe the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories (electrons, for instance) exist.

- Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories

- So scientific realists should be realists about mathematical entities.

[082349872349872]

Thanks. I guess I'm an instrumentalist then (due to having a strong pragmatist streak?) because I'm unconvinced that "existence" in this caricature even denotes.