On 3/15/07, David Nyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps using the term "existence" for mathematical objects is
> misleading.
> > It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world,  just
> that
> > they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism.
> Yes, I understand.  I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can
> conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no
> existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for
> Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states
> of affairs.

It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible
that 17 is only contingently prime?

Stathis Papaiaonnou

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