On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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 through. > >> . 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
