2012/10/30 Stephen P. King <[email protected]> > On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King <[email protected]> > >> On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply >> only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers >> themselves. >> >> >> Truth applies to proposition, or sentences representing them for some >> machine/numbers. If not, comp does not even makes sense. >> >> >> So your are agreeing? "Two" has no truth value, but "Two equals one plus >> one." does. >> >> >> Yes I agree. It seems I insisted on this a lot. >> But in this context, it seems that Stephen was using this to assert that >> the truth of, say "Two equals one plus one." depend on some numbers or >> subject having to discover it, or prove it. >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> Dear Bruno, >> >> My point is that a number is not a capable of being an ontological >> primitive *and* having some particular set of values and meanings. A >> statement, such as 2 = 1+1 or two equals one plus one, are said truthfully >> to have the same meaning because there are multiple and separable entities >> that can have the agreement on the truth value. In the absence of the >> ability to judge a statement independently of any particular entity capable >> of "understanding" the statement, there is no meaning to the concept that >> the statement is true or false. To insist that a statement has a meaning >> and is true (or false) in an ontological condition where no entities >> capable of judging the meaning, begs the question of meaningfulness! >> You are taking for granted some things that your arguments disallow. >> > > Hmm... but that's what arithmetical realism is all about... If you deny > meaning to '17 is prime' absent an entity which gives to it its meaning... > then you're simply negating arithmetical realism and with it > computationalism (ie: consciousness is emulable qua computatio). > > Quentin > > Hi Quentin, > > Well, therefore I must reject arithmetical realism as "unreal" by > definition! Individual entities are incapable of "giving meaning" to > things, be they puppies or prime numbers. It requires an *agreement between > many entities* to have meaningfulness. I claim that it takes at least three > entities... > > If objects that are proposed to be "real" are not observable by > anyone then they don't exist! Where am I going off the rails? I think that > the problem here is that the distinction between "not observable by any > particular entity" and "not observable by any entity" are being confused. I > am reminded of Einstein's silly quip about the Moon still existing even if > he was not looking at it. The poor old fellow neglected to notice that he > was not the only entity that was capable of being affected by the presence > or non-presence of the Moon! > > You might have seen my definition of Reality. Do you recall it? >
So in your view, no humans (no consciouness) implies... 17 is prime or not is not meaningful ? Only consciousness gives meaning to thing... yet it seems absurd that truth value would disappear without consciousness. Quentin > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
