On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 10 Feb 2011, at 16:20, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > > Hi Bruno, > > > -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:24 AM > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false > > before its > > false? > > >> 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? > > I was just saying that number does not need to be real in a sense > deeper than the usual mathematical, informal or formal, sense.

## Advertising

There is no usual sense. >The > usual sense is enough to understand that the additive and > multiplicative structure emulates the UD, and that universal machines > project their experience on its border so that they perceive (and at > the least pretend and belief so) a physical reality, and this > correctly, assuming comp. > > > > > What then establishes the mere possibility of this existence? > > The existence of the natural number is forever a mystery, provably so > assuming comp. You cannot extract the integers from a hat without > integers already in the hat. However, they don't exist, so there is no mystery. You just have to pretend they do in order to play certain games. > > I have the idea that your reasoning behind your argument is a very > > deep > > and subtle version of Goedel's diagonalization. Is this true? > > Only the translation (AUDA) of the reasoning in arithmetic (with the > classical theory of knowledge). The reasoning itself is made possible > by the closure of the class of partial computable functions for the > diagonalization, and that runs deep, indeed. But that's part of > arithmetical truth. > > 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.