On Jul 22, 1:53 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> 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?
No. They are epistemically necessary. That says nothing about
their existence. The argument is that since they can make no
they should be assumed to have no mind independent existence.
> If so, then see my post in the other
> thread where I explain how mathematical truth can explain the existence of
> life and consciousness.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at