On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:

On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then you accept arithmetical realism, which is
enough for the comp consequences.,

Nope. Bivalence can be accepted as a formal rule and therefore
not as a claim that some set of objects either exist or don't.

That's my point.

Do you believe that Church thesis makes sense? That is enough to say
that you believe in the 'arithmetical platonia'

Not at all.

OK. This means that you are using "arithmetical platonia" in a sense which is not relevant for the reasoning.
If you accept CT, there should be no problem with the reasoning at all.

. People needs to be
ultrafinitist to reject the arithmetical platonia.

No, they just need to be anti realist.

Same remark.

Personnaly I am a bit skeptical on set realism, because it is hard to
define it, but for the numbers I have never met people who are not
realist about them.

Oh come on. How can you say that after I just told
you 7 doesn't exist.

You contradict your self, unless you mean that seven is not made of matter. In which case comp nothing exists.

Even to say "I am not arithmetical realist" is
enough to be an arithmetical realist


Probable, given your rather inappropriate sense of metaphysical realism in mathematics.

. A real anti-ariothmetical
realist cannot even spaeak about arithmetical realism. You need to be
an arithmetical realist to make sense of denying it.

Like the old canard that to deny God is to accept God? Naah. Meaning
is not
just reference.

A reasoning is valid, or not valid. Playing with words will not help you to understand it.

Bruno 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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to