On 4 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote: > > > ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers > > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their > > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical > > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued > > backwards > > I have never said that numbers exists because there are true > mathematical statements asserting their existence. > I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such > truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to > even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a > universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like with > the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists. There is no usual sense of "exists" as the material I posted demonstrates. You have to be assuming that the existence of the UD is literal and Platonic since you care concluding that I am beign generated by it and my existeince is not merely metaphorical. The arguemnt doesn't go through otherwise. > I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are > part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic > way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not > depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save > your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA. IF formalism is true there is no UD. It simply doesn't exist and doesn't genarate anything. >And you don't need > really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine. Of course I need a real machine for a real interview. > All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But > fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp. Mathematical existence is metaphorical if mathematical existence is literal. Their existence is literal if mathematical existence is metaphorical. > May be very fertile > one. Like galaxies and brains. > > Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate > basic entities and relations in theories which are always > hypothetical. False. There is nothing hypothetical about ingeous rock. > I am just honest making explicit my use of the non > constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm. > > You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I > 'm afraid. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

- Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology 1Z
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology John Mikes
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Flammarion
- RE: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Jesse Mazer
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology John Mikes
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontolog... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontolog... Bruno Marchal

- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology Flammarion
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontolog... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ont... Flammarion
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... m.a.
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... m.a.
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Flammarion
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Bruno Marchal
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Flammarion
- Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on... Bruno Marchal