From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its
The only ontology is my conciousness, and some amount of consensual
reality (doctor, brain, etc.). It does not assume that physical things
"really" or primitively exists, nor does it assume that numbers really
exist in any sense. Just that they exist in the mathematical sense.
Are you claiming that numbers have an existence that has no connection
what so ever to the possibility of being known or understood or any other
form of prehension or whatever might be considered as being the subject of
awareness in any way?
What then establishes the mere possibility of this existence?
I have the idea that your reasoning behind your argument is a very deep
and subtle version of Goedel's diagonalization. Is this true?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at