2011/2/15 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>

>  On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2011/2/15 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> > On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> > >> On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
>> >
>> > >>> On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> > >>>> 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.
>> >
>> > >>> I want to say "number aren't real, so I'm not really a number"
>> >
>> > >> All your talk about numbers which are not real seems to me
>> > >> nonsensical. Also you seems to know what is real and what is not
>> > >> real,
>> >
>> > > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that?
>> >
>> > I meant "in general".
>>
>>
>>  I don't need anything more than
>> 1) I am real
>> 2) Unreal things don't generate real things
>>
>> I think both of those are hard to dispute.
>>
>
>  You arbitrarily choose the unreal things... without any argument that
> prove that they are unreal (or real or whatever). The principle is sound,
> the choice is not without arguments. You say numbers don't exist... but as I
> said before, I can think about them in my mind...
>
>
> Actually I don't think you can.  You can think of the symbol "7" and the
> word "seven" and you can probably think of seven things, xxxxxxx,  but I
> doubt you can think of the number seven.  I'm pretty sure you can't think of
> the set of all sets with seven members.  And I'm quite sure you can't think
> of all the integers or all arithmetic.
>
>
>  I exist, hence they transitively exist through my mind at the least. I do
> not chose if a number is prime or not hence I'm not inventing them as I'm
> not inventing the world around me.
>
>
> Can you think of Sherlock Holmes?  a pink unicorn?   Can you think of a
> number that is one bigger than the biggest number you can think of (which
> per Peano must exist)?
>
> Brent
>

The difference is I can choose what are/who are/the behavior of... Sherlock
 holmes/pink unicorn/whatever... not the numbers once an axiomatic system is
chosen.

Quentin


>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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