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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---