On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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.
Such a formal claim cannot support the conclusion that
I am an immaterial dreaming machine.
> >> 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.
I accept CT and reject Platonism, and thus the reasoning does not go
> >> . People needs to be
> >> ultrafinitist to reject the arithmetical platonia.
> > No, they just need to be anti realist.
> Same remark.
Nope. Finitists think 7 exists., anti realists think it doesn't.
> >> 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,
No I don't. How many times have I explained that
mathematical existence claims are true in a fictive
sense that doesn't imply real existence
>unless you mean that seven is not made of
> matter. In which case comp nothing exists.
What does "comp nothing exists" mean?
> >> Even to say "I am not arithmetical realist" is
> >> enough to be an arithmetical realist
> > Nonsense.
> Probable, given your rather inappropriate sense of metaphysical
> realism in mathematics.
I am not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a number
> >> . 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.
A true conclusion requires soundness as well as validity
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