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: 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.
> > >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...
>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
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