Other subthread? Don’t see where anyone made that point. Moreover, I don’t think it is a good reading of the original quote.
But the proof of [a mathematical] proposition is a matter of physics only. There is no such thing as abstractly proving something, just as there is no such thing as abstractly knowing something.
That’s not fairly represented by saying “All actual proofs are on physical paper (or equivalent).”
I was thinking of this comment. If by “knowledge” he means “a piece of memory in reality,” then by definition there is no abstract knowledge, and no abstract proofs, because he limited himself to concrete knowledge.
That knowledge can describe concepts that we don’t think of as concrete- the Pythogorean Theorem doesn’t have a physical manifestation somewhere- but my knowledge of it does have a physical manifestation.
Other subthread? Don’t see where anyone made that point. Moreover, I don’t think it is a good reading of the original quote.
That’s not fairly represented by saying “All actual proofs are on physical paper (or equivalent).”
I was thinking of this comment. If by “knowledge” he means “a piece of memory in reality,” then by definition there is no abstract knowledge, and no abstract proofs, because he limited himself to concrete knowledge.
That knowledge can describe concepts that we don’t think of as concrete- the Pythogorean Theorem doesn’t have a physical manifestation somewhere- but my knowledge of it does have a physical manifestation.