On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the > existence > > > of > > > > number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence > of > > > > matter does not explain the existence of number relations. > > > > > Yes it does. Any number relation that has ever been grasped by > > > anybody exists in their mind, and therefore in their brain. And as > > > for the ungrasped ones...so what? It can make no difference > > > if they are there or not. > > > > Perhaps if those "ungrasped ones" did not exist then we might not exist. > It > > is premature to say their existence does not make a difference to us. > > The existence of matter can explain the existence of numbers. > The reverse might also be the case, but that is not a disproof. > > > I think may also be incorrect to say we need to grasp numbers or their > > relations for them to matter. Consider this example: I generate a large > > random number X, with no obvious factors (I think it is prime), but when > I > > compute (y^(X - 1)) and divide by X (where y is not a multiple of X), I > find > > the remainder is not 1. This means X is not prime: it has factors other > > than 1 and X, but I haven't grasped what those factors are. Nor is there > > any efficient method for finding out what they are. > > > Now the existence of these ungrasped numbers does make a difference. If > I > > attempted to build an RSA key using X and another legitimately prime > number > > (instead of two prime numbers), then the encryption won't work properly. > I > > won't be able to determine a private key because I don't know all the > > factors. > > > The contingent fact that is your failure to grasp a mathematical > truth is makes a difference.
Just above you said mathematical objects only exist if they exist physically in some brain. This is a case where the factors are not only unknown by me, but likely unknown by anyone in the observable universe. > Mathematical truths are not contingent, > so > what difference can they make? > If they are not contingent then you accept they exist even without the existence of the physical universe? If so, then see my post in the other thread where I explain how mathematical truth can explain the existence of life and consciousness. Jason -- 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.
