On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all > >> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to > >> be > >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible > >> >> >> epiphenomena. > > >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent numbers. > >> >> > Numbers > >> >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is explained from > >> > >> >> something non physical. > > >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some existing non- > >> > physical > >> > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > > >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems very much > >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" mean? > > > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > > You can't have one without the other. > The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number 2) > exists.
The idea that "2 hands exist" implies that 2 exists implies that 3 things exist (the left hand, the right hand and "two") > 1Z wrote: > > >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't have two > >> of > >> something, right? > > > And if you have none of something, none exists. > > Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. > > 1Z wrote: > > >> Or is it a fictional statement? > > > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must > > have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc > > do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a > > whole* > > to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. > > Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word implies the > existence of an object that is connected to the word. That's a straight contradiction. > If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and something" or a > conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", "something or > something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word > "is", To say "there is an existing statue of liberty" says nothing more that "there is a statue of liberty" >"something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful > to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence exist > (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to something else) > and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of something" or the > number 2 exists. Nope. To say that two of something exist is not to say two exists. > View this message in > context:http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-f... > Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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.
