On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > Whatever question you can > ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or > how to find it...numbers are wholly defined by a set of axioms, it seems that > they are more real than fictional characters.
But being able to answer question is essentially epistemic. It doesn't imply any ontology in itself. The epistemic fact that we can , in principle, answer questions about real people may be explained by the existence and perceptual accessibility of real people: but our ability to answer questions about mathematical objects is explained by the existence of clear definitions and rules doesn't need to posit of existing immaterial numbers (plus some mode of quasi-perceptual access to them). But when you consider arithmetic as a whole this no > longer holds. There may be questions that aren't decidable and whose > answer could be added as an axiom; the way a writer could add a mole to > Sherlock Holmes' arm. > > Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.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.