Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> meekerdb wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> But to get the comp point, you don't need to decide what numbers  
>>>>> are,
>>>>> you need only to agree with or just assume some principle, like 0  
>>>>> is
>>>>> not a successor of any natural numbers, if x ≠ y then s(x) ≠  
>>>>> s(y),
>>>>> things like that.
>>>> I agree that it is sometimes useful to assume this principle, just  
>>>> as it
>>>> sometimes useful to assume that Harry Potter uses a wand. Just  
>>>> because we
>>>> can usefully assume some things in some contexts, do not make them
>>>> universal
>>>> truth.
>>>> So if you want it this way, 1+1=2 is not always true, because  
>>>> there might
>>>> be
>>>> other definition of natural numbers, were 1+1=&.
>>> It's always "true" in Platonia, where "true" just means satisfying  
>>> the
>>> axioms.  In real
>>> life it's not always true because of things like: This business is so
>>> small we just have
>>> one owner and one employee and 1+1=1.
>> Yeah, but it remains to be shown that platonia is more than just an  
>> idea.
> Physical reality is an an idea too. But as a primitive ontological  
> reality, it cannot even explain the belief in the physical fact by  
> machine. It needs a notion of body-observer which incarnate actual  
> infinities.
I am not defending physical reality as primary. But it is not an idea as
commonly understood (you could say it is an idea of God). It is content of
our experience.
I believe the observer is an actual infinity, why not?

Aside from that, I don't think machines can believe in anything. You just
interpret that in them. Beliefs are just patterns within consciousness.
Ultimately there is no one that is believing. This itself is just a belief.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I
>> haven't yet seen any evidence of that.
>> Bruno seems to justify that by reductio ad absurdum of 1+1=2 being  
>> dependent
>> on ourselves, so 1+1=2 has to be true objectively in Platonia. I  
>> don't buy
>> that argument. If our mind (or an equivalent mind, say of another  
>> species
>> with the same intellectual capbilites) isn't there isn't even any  
>> meaning to
>> 1+1=2, because there is no way to interpret the meaning in it.
> This contradicts your agreement that "1+1=2" is a feature of God in a  
> preceding post.
Not really, when I say "1+1=2" is a feature of God I am just saying it is a
valid expression of some regularity within God. I am not implying that it
has any independent meaning outside of our mind(s) (which is God's mind).
1+1=2 is a feature of God with respect to the fact that concrete objects and
measurements tend to behave like that, not as an independent fact.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to