Brent Meeker <> writes:

> On 7/29/2010 4:03 PM, Mark Buda wrote:
>     Agreed, but I would point out that the answer to the question of the
>     existence of numbers is the truth value of a logical proposition about the
>     ideas we call "number" and "existence".
> What logical proposition would that be?

Pardon my Unicode, but that would be

∃x: x ∈ ℕ

> A proposition like "Every number has a successor" or "2+2=4" don't say
> tell us anything about whether numbers exist.  Truth values in logic
> are just arbitrary assignments of T to some propositions (axioms) and
> F to others (contradictions).  The are not evidence of existence.

Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe
logical propositions about them. They exist because minds believe
logical propositions about them. They are defined and distinguished by
the logical propositions that minds believe about them.

There are three worlds: the physical world of elementary particles, the
mental world of minds, and the imaginary world of ideas. They are
linked, somehow, by logical relationships, and the apparent flow of time
in the mental world causes/is caused by changes in these relationships.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "laws" of physics are changing, slowly,
incrementally, right under our noses. In fact, I would be delighted,
because it would explain many things.

>     ...their truth value depends on who you are and what you choose to
>     do.
> I don't know what you mean by that...

I meant that reality is subjective. Right down to the laws of
physics. Which I believe I have figured out how to change. A testable,
falsifiable, silly, hypothesis!
Mark Buda <>
I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to