# Re: Prime Numbers

`On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:`
```
> On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>  On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. If we cannot prove that their existence is self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Propositions can be self contradictory, but how can existence of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brent, it was roger, not I, who wrote the above.  But in any case I
>>>>>> interpreted his statement to mean if some theoretical object is found to
>>>>>> have contradictory properties, then it does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No worries.
>>>>
>>>>  So you mean if some mathematical object implies a contradiction it
>>>>> doesn't exist, e.g. the largest prime number. But then of course the proof
>>>>> of contradiction is relative to the axioms and rules of inference.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well there is always some theory we have to assume, some model we
>>>> operate under.  This is needed just to communicate or to think.
>>>>
>>>> The contradiction proof is relevant to some theory, but so is the
>>>> existence proof.  You can't even define an object without using some agreed
>>>> upon theory.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure you can.  You point and say, "That!"  That's how you learned the
>>> meaning of words, by abstracting from a lot of instances of your mother
>>> pointing and saying, "That."
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is still an implicitly assumed model that the two people are
>> operating under (if they agree on what is meant by the chair they see).
>>
>> Or they may use different models and define the chair differently.  For
>> example, a solipist believes the chair is only his idea, a physicalist
>> thinks it is a collection of primitive matter, a computationalist a dream
>> of numbers.
>>
>> Then while they might all agree on the existence of something, that thing
>> is different for each person because they are defining it under different
>> models.
>>
>
> But if they are different then what sense does it make to say there is a
> contradiction in *the* model and hence something doesn't exist.

It means a certain object (which is defined in a model) does not exist in
that model.  A model in one object is not the same as another object in a
different model, even if they might have the same name, symbol,
or appearance.  "2 in a finite field", is a different thing from "2 in the
natural numbers".  The "chair in the solipist model" is different from the
"chair in the materialist model".  A chair made out of primitively real
matter is non-existent in the solipist model.

I don't see how you can escape having to work within a model when you make
assertions, like X exists, or Y does not exist.  What is X or Y outside of
the model from which they are defined and exist within?

Jason

That's why it makes no sense to talk about a contradiction disproving the
> existence of something you can define ostensively.  It is only in the
> Platonia of statements that you can derive contradictions from axioms and
> rules of inference.  If you can point to the thing whose non-existence is
> proven, then it just means you've made an error in translating between
> reality and Platonia.
>
> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscribe@
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.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