On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk <[email protected]> wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk <[email protected]> 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?
It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum > > 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. > > > That's a straight contradiction. > > I expressed myself badly here... > > 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. What is objectify ? > Probably I should just say that every word has a referent. Clearly not, e.g unicorn. > 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. It is that words like "is" don't need a referent > 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,...". I need functionally the same structure, because I need some basis for mathematics. But its an asbtract structure that doesn't exist. > -- > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
