Le vendredi 18 août 2006 11:52, 1Z a écrit :
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
> > > > Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold
> > > > assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need a sophisticated
> > > > form of finitism to doubt it. I recall it is just the belief that the
> > > > propositions of elementary arithmetic are independent of you.
> > >
> > > Arithemtical Platonism is the belief that mathematical
> > > structures *exist* independently of you,
> > > not just that they are true independently of you.
> >
> > What's the difference?
> Things that exist are available for causal interaction. Numbers aren't.
You were defining arithmetical platonism.... and now you define existing. Your 
two comments are contradictory. Because following your description of 
existing, mathematical structure are not available for causal interaction 
(like numbers... )

If you think you're not contradicting yourself, could you explain more in 
detail what you mean.

Quentin Anciaux

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to