# Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

```
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
difference,
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.
>
> Jason

--
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
For more options, visit this group at

```