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. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/COMP-is-empty%28-%29-tp32569717p32614927.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
