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
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 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.

Reply via email to