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

```On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote:
```
```
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
```
```On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk 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.
```
```
```
Sure you can. You can have an apple and an orange. Whether they constitute two of something depends on you thinking of them as fruits.
```
```
```The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the number
2)
exists.

```
```It requires that two of something exist, but not that the number itself
2 exist.
```
```What is the difference between two of something and two?
```
```
Two of something exists if the somethings exist.

```
```Numbers always express quantity of something, even if this something is just
numbers.

It's like writing "2x" and "2". It may be formally different, but I don't
see a difference in the concept that is expressed. "2" is just shorter than
"2x" or "2*1" or "1+1".
(I am aware that 2x is of course different than 2 when they are both used in
a common context like in 2x+2=8; but not when all numbers are written with
an x behind them)

Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
```
```   In symbolic logic it and be expressed as Ex Ey (Hand(x) + Hand
(y) + (x=/=y)), no mention of the number 2.
```
```You are aware that you just written down TWO "Hand"s?
You don't need to write "two" to express that 2 is meant. You can write "II"
or "1 plus 1" or "the number of my hands" or "pi/pi + pi/pi" or whatever.
```
```
```
Writing x x is writing two x's, but it's not writing a number. Actually I have no objection to supposing the number two exists - so long as its "existence" is qualified as existing in some completely different sense than hands exist.
```
Brent

```
```
Brent Meeker-2 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.

```
```What if you have no zero?  :-)
```
```Uhm, then I get one out of platonia. I heard they are free there, maybe you
should get some. They are very useful. ;)

Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
```
```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.

```
```You seem to not understand what "referent" means.  The above sentence is
```
```I thought referent is that thing which a word refers to.
If you allow just objects as referents, then some words have no direct
referent.

Like "and".
One could argue it doesn't directly refer to an object. But nevertheless
there are objects that reflect what the word means, like "conjunction".
```
```
```
You could say "and" is conjuction and exists in the land of connectives. But this sort of extension of "exists" threatens to blur the use of the word in meaninglessness. Russell's theory of types tried to reconstruct mathematics that way.
```
Brent

--
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