# Re: Maudlin & How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

1Z wrote:
>
>
> 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")
Right. You just made an argument that ALL numbers do exist. Do you have a
problem with that?

1Z wrote:
>
>> 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.
>

I wanted to express that some words don't seem to have a direct referent in
the sense of an object, but that it is possible to objectify them and then
they do have a referent.

Probably I should just say that every word has a referent.

1Z wrote:
>
>> 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"
That depends how you interpret the sentence. In general I agree, but "there
is an existing statue of liberty" might be used with "existing" in the sense
of existing in the stable consensus reality.

So you could say "there is an existing statue of liberty" (that exists in
the consensus reality) in contrast to "there is a 'non-existant' statue of
serfdom" (that is absent in the consensus reality; but it does exists in my
imagination).

Your comment is probably meant to imply there is something wrong with what I
wrote, but I don't get what it is.

1Z wrote:
>
>>"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.
>
OK; I don't really get that, but let's say this is so.

Then you get the functionally same structure as the numbers, but you don't
call them "one, two, three,..." but "one of something, two of something,
three of something,...".
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30953482.html
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