On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:12, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically implement them.

Those notion have nothing to do with "physical implementation".

   So your thinking about them is not a physical act?

Too much ambiguous. Even staying in comp I can answer "yes" and "no".
Yes, because my human thinking is locally supported by physical events. No, because the whole couple mind/physical events is supported by platonic arithmetical truth.
Dear Bruno,

   Where is the evidence of the existence of a Platonic realm?

It is part of the assumption. We postulate arithmetic. I try to avoid the use of "platonic" there, as I used the term in Plato sense. In that sense Platonia = the greek Noùs, and it is derived from arithmetic and comp.

All you need is the belief that 43 is prime independently of "43 is prime".

The mere self-consistency of an idea is proof of existence

Already in arithmetic we have the consistence of the existence of a prrof of the false, this certainly does not mean that there exist a proof of the false. So self-consistency is doubtfully identifiable with truth, and still less with existence.

but the idea must be understood by a multiplicity of entities with the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood to have any coherence as an idea!

Not at all. 43 is prime might be true, even in absence of universe and observer.

We cannot just assume that the mere existence of some undefined acts to determine the properties of the undefined. Truth and falsity are possible properties, they are not ontological aspects of existence.

Truth is no more a property than existence. It makes no sense.



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