On 10/30/2012 11:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/10/30 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net 

    On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

    2012/10/30 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net 

        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

        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 
        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 
        having to discover it, or prove it.


        http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>

        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 
        such as 2 = 1+1 or two equals one plus one, are said truthfully to have 
        same meaning because there are multiple and separable entities that can 
        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, 
        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 
    negating arithmetical realism and with it computationalism (ie: 
consciousness is
    emulable qua computatio).


    Hi Quentin,

        Well, therefore I must reject arithmetical realism as "unreal" by 
    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 
    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 
    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 
    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.

If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to