On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:

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.

It entails it formally. Then you interpret it like you want, with the philosophy you want. Just be careful in case you do say "yes" to a physically real doctor.

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

To provide sense to CT, you need to be able to say that any program P on any input x will stop or will not stop. So you have to accept the use of classical logic on numbers definable properties. That is what I called Arithmetical realism. I prefer to use Platonism for theology. Platonism is the theology in which the physical reality is the shadow, or the border, or the projection of something else. That use of Platonism come up in the conclusion of the reasoning and is not assumed at the start.

. 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.

Use AR formally. The theological conclusion will be provided by the fact that you might be able to imagine surviving a digital graft.

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

Then please use that fictive sense in the reasoning. Then yes doctor + occam gives the ontological conclusion.

unless you mean that seven is not made of
matter. In which case comp nothing exists.

What does "comp nothing exists" mean?

Sorry. I meant "In which case comp implies 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.

I am  not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a  number

I start from the assumption that I can survive through a digital backup. So locally "I am a number", in that sense. But this concerns only my third person I (body), and I show that the first person naturally associated (by its memories, or by the classical theory of knowledge) is not 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

In science we never know if our premisses and conclusions are true or not. We judge validity only.



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