  In his remarkable paper Formalism64, Robinson defends his philsophocal
position as follows: (i) Any mention of infinite totalities is literally
meaningless. (ii) We should act as if infinite totalities really existed. Being
the originator of Nonstandard Analysis, it stands to reason that Robinson would
have often been faced with the opposing position that 'some infinite totalities
are more meaningful than others', the textbook example being that of
infinitesimals (versus less controversial infinite totalities). For instance,
Bishop and Connes have made such claims regarding infinitesimals, and
Nonstandard Analysis in general, going as far as calling the latter
respectively a debasement of meaning and virtual, while accepting as meaningful
other infinite totalities and the associated mathematical framework.
  We shall study the critique of Nonstandard Analysis by Bishop and Connes, and
observe that these authors equate 'meaning' and 'computational content', though
their interpretations of said content vary. As we will see, Bishop and Connes
claim that the presence of ideal objects (in particular infinitesimals) in
Nonstandard Analysis yields the absence of meaning (i.e. computational
content). We will debunk the Bishop-Connes critique by establishing the
contrary, namely that the presence of ideal objects (in particular
infinitesimals) in Nonstandard Analysis yields the ubiquitous presence of
computational content. In particular, infinitesimals provide an elegant
shorthand for expressing computational content. To this end, we introduce a
direct translation be- tween a large class of theorems of Nonstandard Analysis
and theorems rich in computational content (not involving Nonstandard
Analysis), similar to the 'reversals' from the foundational program Reverse
Mathematics. The latter also plays an important role in gauging the scope of
this translation.
