On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk <[email protected]> wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > 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 > > That's what I thought, so I guessed you have a problem with the conclusion. > What's absurd with all numbers existing?
What's absurd is the 2=3 > 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. Why should something have necessary and eternal existence just because someone rephrased a sentence? > >> 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. An idea about a unicorn is an individual of the type <idea>, Unicorns do not exist because ideas about them do. The Sense of a term is an idea in any case. There is no reason why the Reference should bend back on itself an be an idea as well. (Except for a few exceptions such as the referent of "concept", "idea", etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference >That it does not refer to an animal in the same > way as "horse" does, does not mean it has no referent at all. But if number terms just refer to ideas, that is not Platonism, that is Psychologism > 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. Existence is the referent of "existence", not of "Is". I have already pointed out that the "is" of predication can be used with non-existent subjects. "God is" uses the non-predicative "is" to mean God exists. "God is omnipotent" uses the "is" of predication to indicate a hypothetical property of God, and could even be used in an argument for the non existence of God. > >> 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. And if one stone exists, a stone exist, not "one" > 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, Sure. But not an existing abstract structure. Just like the unicorn isn't an existing mythological animal. The abstract/concrete distinction needs an explanation. The Platonist explanation is that abstracta are invisible entities existing in a special realm. The formalist explanation is that concreta exist and abstracta donn't. >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-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.
