Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
> 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.

I don't think you can conceive of "an apple and and orange" without them
constituting two things. The "and" already implies there are two things
(usually).

But even if we grant that an apple and an orange are not necessarily two
things it is harder to deny that we need the number one in order to have one
apple/orange/hand.


Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
>>>> 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.

Why can "two" not just mean  "two of something existing"?


Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
>> 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.
Then you treat a number as a symbol. I would rather call that numeral but
OK.

I'm refering to the concept of a quantity of two. And "x x" clearly
represents a quantity of two.


Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
>  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.
I think few would claim that numbers do not exist in a different way then
hands.
That's hard to argue with. A hand is much more specific than a number, it is
material, it is concrete...

But that does not mean that numbers exist in a "lesser" way.


Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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
>>> self contradictory.
>>>      
>> 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.
Existence is probably the broadest category we have, so I think it is very
natural for it to be blurry.
I wouldn't call it meaningless, though, because a very broad term can still
be meaningful.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30954285.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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to