1Z wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That doesn't mean "two" is a third thing with a separate exisence.

It doesn't have to have "seperate" existence.
The parts of my body exist, even though they have no seperate existence from
my body.

Whether you think of it as a third thing is a question of interpretation.
One could as well deny that an apple and an orange are two things because
there is really just one thing, namely "an apple and an orange".


1Z wrote:
> 
>>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
> 
> THat is not what is at dispute. Two fruit are two fruit, not two fruit
> and
> one number.
Two fruit are two fruit and not two fruit and a fruit; nevertheless it
implied that a fruit exists.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Maudlin---How-many-times-does-COMP-have-to-be-false-before-its-false--tp30792507p30959858.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