On Feb 11, 11:47 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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: 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. > > > 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. > > However they do exists...
Proof? >you don't have to pretend to play games... what > does it mean to pretend something exists ? And you from the brithplace of Marcel Marceau! > 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 need to. Existing abstract objects, ie numbers, explain nothing about our ability to think about abstract objects , since they can't interact with our brains. (Benacerraf) > 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 don't think I need to worry about how real I am for my argument to go through -- 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.
