2011/2/11 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
> 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: email@example.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.
> There is no usual sense.
> > 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.
However they do exists... you don't have to pretend to play games... what
does it mean to pretend something exists ?
All your definitions of existing lies down to interaction with you
(RITSTIAR)... You are so sure by what you mean by real, that it has so much
sense that you could not look beyond... I don't agree with your definition
even with RITSTIAR just because I don't know what makes me real and I don't
know in what sense I'm more real than you or not... but I'm sure I'm more
real than you from my own POV.
> > > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at