> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:01:51 -0700
> Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
> From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Aug, 10:51, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:55:35 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff
> > > From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com
> > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> >
> > > >However, some physicists - Julian Barbour for one - use
> > > > the term in a way that clearly has reference, as I think does Bruno.
> >
> > > Any Platonists thinks there is a real immaterial realm, that is the
> > > whole point
> >
> > What does "real" mean?
> 
> ITSIAR

Don't know what that stands for--I think I've seen that abbreviation before in 
some other recent posts, but there have been a lot of posts I've missed over 
the last few weeks so maybe it was defined in one of the ones I didn't read. 
Anyway, could you explain?
 
> >Once again it seems to be a synonym for existence, but you aren't defining 
> >what notion of existence you're talking about, you speak as though it has a 
> >single transparent meaning which coincides with your own notion of physical 
> >existence.
> 
> There is a basic meaning to existence, the Johnsonion one.
Of course Johnson's "refutation" of Berkeley's idealism was not a very 
philosophical one, it was either humorous or anti-intellectual, depending on 
how seriously he intended it. Any philosopher could tell you that Johnson would 
have exactly the same experience of feeling the rock against his boot in a 
lawlike idealist universe, like the "scenario A" I offered in the post before 
the one you are responding to here.
> 
> >On the contrary, I think most modern analytic philosophers would interpret 
> >"mathematical Platonism" to mean *only* that mathematical structures exist 
> >in the Quinean sense, i.e. that there are truths about them that cannot be 
> >paraphrased into truths about the physical world (whatever that is). I don't 
> >think any additional notion of "existence" is normally implied by the term 
> >"mathematical Platonism" (and many philosophers might not even acknowledge 
> >that there are any well-defined notions of of 'existence' besides the 
> >Quinean one)
> 
> It is absolutely clear from the above that if they are a) existent and
> b) not physcially accountable then they
> are c) immaterically existent.
What do you mean by "physically accountable"? Are you referring to the notion 
that mathematical truths cannot be paraphrased as physical truths (assuming 
that what we call the physical world is itself not just a part of Platonia)? If 
so, then yes, I'd say according to the Quinean definition of "existence", 
numbers exist but not as part of the physical world.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to