>Do you believe there exist an infinite number of integers?  If so I ask you 
>why should these very large numbers exist if >they require a physical basis?  
>There are numbers we cannot physically coceive of by virtue of their size and 
>the finite >size of the observable universe.  If these large numbers exist, 
>they have no mental or physical existence here.

Roger: I believe that a system exists in our minds that can abstractly produce 
an infinite number of integers as well as can conceive of the number pi.   
There may really be an infinite number of non-mind things.  I think there 
probably are,  but we'll never be able to count them physically, so we'll never 
be 100% sure.  There's a difference between saying that we can conceive of 
mathematical concepts in our minds and whether or not these abstract truths 
actually physically exist out there somewhere in this cavern of yours.  

>You ask us to point out the hidden cavern containing scribblings by god for 
>all mathematical truth before you can accept >its human-independent existence. 
> But as a scientist do you believe the past exists?  How about the space 
>beyond the >cosmologicsl horizon?  Other branches of the wave function? Other 
>universes implied by string theory?  If so, why do >you believe in them when 
>it is provably impossible for anyone to point them out for your eyes to see?

Roger: I believe the past did exist but no longer does.  Do you believe it 
still exists in the here and now?   I don't necessarilly believe in other 
universes, space beyond the cosmological horizon.   They may be there and they 
may not be.  Current evidence suggests they do exist, but as any scientist 
would say, we can't be sure until we can observe them more directly.

>You asked why it is that whatever serves as the basis of reality exisys rather 
>than nothing.  Arithmatic truth such as the >pimality of 17, or the oddness of 
>9 cannot be any other way.  These perfectly clear statements about the numbers 
>must >be either true or false, the status of the truth cannot be undefined or 
>non-existent.  Or do you disagree?

Roger:  Arithmetic truths "cannot be any other way"?    Many people use this 
argument for promoting all kinds of views.   If you can provide more directly 
observable evidence of where these truths exist outside of all other physical 
things other than dogmatically repeating that they do exist,  I'd be more 
likely to agree with you.   Until then, I suggest that they don't exist outside 
of all other physical things, but I'll let more evidence convince me either 


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 

Reply via email to