On Feb 15, 8:39 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/2011 12:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2011/2/15 Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com
> > <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>>
>
> >     On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> >>     2011/2/15 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com <mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>>
>
> >>         On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be
> >>         <mailto: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
> >>         <mailto: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
> >>         <mailto: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
> >>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
> No, it's only a difference of degree.  You can't choose Sherlock Holmes
> to be an American or a bus driver.  He "exists" in a looser axiomatic
> system than integers, but he is still defined by being consistent with
> the character in the stories by Conan Doyle.  Similarly, you can't
> imagine a pink unicorn that is blue and has two horns.
>
> Brent

The ontology of fiction can be true of mathematics even if the
methodology isn't.

-- 
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