On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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?

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 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