1Z wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
That's what I thought, so I guessed you have a problem with the conclusion.
What's absurd with all numbers existing?


1Z wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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 ?
In this case I mean the linguistic act of transforming a non-noun word into
a noun that expresses the same concept.
I'm not sure if this can be properly called objectifying but this was the
word that came to my mind.


1Z wrote:
> 
>> Probably I should just say that every word has a referent.
> 
> Clearly  not, e.g unicorn.
Of course it has a referent. If you say "unicorn" this refers to ideas about
an mythological creature. That it does not refer to an animal in the same
way as "horse" does, does not mean it has no referent at all.


1Z wrote:
> 
>> 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
I don't know what you mean by that. In what way do words "need" anything?

My point is that "is" clearly has a referent, namely existence.
Existence exists, I hope you agree with that.


1Z wrote:
> 
>> 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.
But if "one of something" doesn't exist "one stone" doesn't exist, because a
stone clearly is something. 

If one of something doesn't exist you have to conclude that all things
(including all material things like atoms) fail to exist. Which is quite a
strange conclusion. 

Furthermore you just said it IS an abstract structure, and like you said
yourself, "is" expresses existence.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30959428.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