On Feb 15, 7:28 pm, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> 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).
It's the inverse of Bruno's argument: immateriality is an unnecessary posit given materiality. > 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 You can think about fictional entities too. Why would something have to exist outside your head in order for you to think about it? >... I exist, hence they > transitively exist through my mind at the least. But Bruno claims *they* are generating *you*. > I do not chose if a number > is prime or not hence Certain things follow inevitably when you are following rules. That does not need to be explained by positing anything beyond the rules themselves. > I'm not inventing them Well, someone told you the rules. You didn't invent chess either -- 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.
