2011/2/15 Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2011/2/15 1Z <[email protected]> > >> >> >> On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote: >> > >> > >>> On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>> On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote: >> > >> > >>>>> 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. >> > >> > >>>> 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 [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. > -- 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 [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.
