Tom Caylor wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > >> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
> > > >>
> > > >>> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL....
> > > >>
> > > >> I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain
> > > > why you don't argue against it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at
> > > all.
> > > If that is "antiplatonism", it would help me if you could explain
> > > what is "antiplatonism", or better what could it mean that the numbers
> > > don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying
> > > they does not exist at all ???
> >
> > It means they don't non-physically exist either.
> >
> > Mathematical claims about existence can be true
> > of false, but so can fictional claims like "Harry Potter exists
> > in Middle Earth"
> >
> > >  Even Licorne exists in some sense,
> > > without referent in "the physical world", but with referent (meaning)
> > > in some fantasy worlds?
> >
> > Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy
> > worlds, --
> > Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds.
> >
> > Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the
> > box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have
> > referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only
> > "sense" (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions
> > aspects of meaning, but not every term has both.
> > Sense is internal to langauge, it  a relationship between a
> > word/concept
> > and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is
> > like
> > defining a word by pointing and saying "it is one of those".
> > But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since
> > there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts
> > are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts.
> > Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary.
> >
> > > Why could numbers not exist in some similar
> > > sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled
> > > recently).
> >
> > Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world
> > is a cumbersome way of saying they don't
> > literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally
> > kick back. They don't interact causally
> > with my reality.
>
> What about:
> If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat.
> In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat
> my hat.
> This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime
> number.


No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1
is not  a prime number. Causality , as opposed
to material implication, requires contingency.



> Tom
>
> >
> > > I am just trying to understand what you say.
> > > 
> > > Bruno
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


Reply via email to