Le 02-sept.-06, à 17:26, 1Z a écrit :

> Things don't become necessarily true just
> because someone says so. The truths
> of mathematics may be necessarily true, but
> that does not make AR a s aclaim about
> existence necessarily true. AR as a claim
> about existence is metaphysics, and highly debatable.

Yes. So let us never do it.

> Necessary truth doesn't entail necessary existence unless
> the claims in question are claims about existence.


> Whether mathematical truths are about existence is debatable
> and not "necessary".

Existential  mathematical statement are about existence.

> Not if AR is only a claim about truth.

AR is about the truth of arithmetical statements, and among 
arithmetical statements, many are existential, so AR makes claim about 
the independent truth of existential statements. No need to add 
metaphysics at this stage (nor at any other stage by the way, except 
the yes doctor, which I prefer to range in "theology" than in 

> Necessary truth
> can exist in  a world of contingent existence -- providing
> all necessary truths in such a world are ontologically non-commital.

I don't understand.

> As non-Platonists indded take mathematical statements to be.

AR does not ask you for believing in some metaphysical (still less 
physical) existence of numbers. It ask you to agree that a proposition 
of the type ExP(x) is true or false independently of any cognitive 
faculty. Cognitive abilities are needed to believe or know that ExP(x) 
is true (or false), but that's all.

> That's what White Rabbits are all about.
> There is also an apriori argument against Pythagoreanism (=everything
> is numbers). If it is a *contingent* fact that non-mathematical
> entities
> don't exist,

It is not even a fact. It is an assumption. Nobody has proved that 
something non mathematical exists, although comp is quite close in 
proving this. Indeed comp shows that no first person can be described 
mathematically by herself. So *relatively* to a machine first person, 
many things will *appear* non mathematical. It is a consequence of 
incompleteness + the theaetetical-plotinian definition of knowledge.

> Pythagoreanism cannot be justified by rationalism (=-
> all truths are necessary and apriori). Therefore the
> Pythagorean-ratioanlist
> must believe matter is *impossible*.

Not impossible. Just useless.



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