On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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?

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 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