On 18 Aug 2009, at 12:14, Flammarion wrote:

>> Each branch of math has its own notion of existence, and with comp,  
>> we
>> have a lot  choice, for the ontic part, but usually I take
>> arithmetical existence, if only because this is taught in school, and
>> its enough to justified the existence of the universal numbers, and
>> either they dreams (if "yes doctor") or at least their discourse on
>> their dreams (if you say no the doctor and decide to qualify those
>> machines are "inexistent zombies").
> Platonism is not taught in schools. You are conflatin
> existence with truth

Platonism is not taught in schools, I agree. But I have never said that.
I am not conflating existence with truth, I am conflating mathematical  
existence with truth of existential arithmetical statements.

> mathematical stucture+matter gives you more to
> tackle the consciousness problem with than mathematical structure
> alone

The mind-body problem comes from the fact that we have not yet find  
how to attach consciousness to matter. At least with comp, after UDA,  
we know why.

> No. it is equivalent to the conjunction of that stament with
> "and the mathematicians Ex is a claim of ontological existence".

You are the one making that addition. So, again, show where in the  
reasoning I would use that addition.

>> If you really believe that the number 7 has no existence at all, then
>> the UDA reasoning does not go through,
> at last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read or reread the SANE paper, I explicitly assume Arithmetical  
Realism. This is hardly new. I really don't follow you.
UDA is an argument showing that comp (yes doctor + CT) => non  
physicalism.  (CT = Church thesis)
A weaker version of CT is provably equivalent with Ex(x = universal  
number). It makes no sense without AR.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to