On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
> > 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:
> So the epistemic facts have an ontological implication. If I describe a
> man who lives at 10 Baker Street, smokes dope, and works as a detective
> you won't know whether he's real or not. But if I tell you there is no
> fact of the matter about whether he has a mole on his arm, then you'll
> know he's a fiction.
If I can figure out information I haven't been given
from information I have been given, I don't need to suppose
that I didn't figure it out and instead perceived it by by some
> > 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).
> I agree. Although it's interesting that some people with synasthesia
> apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual properties.
Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other people don't
"perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not
really being perceived at all.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at