On 26 Sep 2012, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
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
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."
But this uses implicit theories selected by evolution. A brain *is*
essentially a theory of the "local universe" already.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at