On 11/3/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[BM] All this makes sense only because such truth does not depend on
us and on our theories.
[SPK] No, that is an incoherent statement as it pretends to be
meaningful in the absence of any means to evaluate its meaningfulness.
That is arithmetical realism. A statement like Church thesis and comp
makes no sense at all without it.
I have never heard about someone not believing in arithmetical
realism. It is really basic. To pretend that arithmetical realism is
false already needs arithmetical realism.
Dear Bruno,
You have now heard of someone like that! Church's thesis and comp
make sense to me without AR, I don't pretend that I am the only mind and
that it is because my thoughts can agree with those of other minds that
there is something "real" to all of us. You still do not see
thecrypto-solipsism
<http://books.google.com/books?id=k_xYkhHiXbwC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=crypto-solipsism&source=bl&ots=nUEID3Dj1a&sig=zBQ3_9dxB6nHe2EVQ3o2iJ_VZG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6gCVUMLUG4yk8gTXrIDICA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=crypto-solipsism&f=false>of
your philosophical stance! I am not alone is noticing this! (See the
linked passage here
<http://books.google.com/books?id=k_xYkhHiXbwC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=crypto-solipsism&source=bl&ots=nUEID3Dj1a&sig=zBQ3_9dxB6nHe2EVQ3o2iJ_VZG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6gCVUMLUG4yk8gTXrIDICA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=crypto-solipsism&f=false>
for a discussion) David Deutsch has a long discussion of this problem in
his book/The Fabric of Reality/.
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AThe_Fabric_of_Reality , I
found the following:
"Philosophers keep getting tangled up trying to prove scientific
theories using pure logic alone, without any basis of facts. Viewing
them as explanations instead brings many advantages, such as the ability
to choose the simplest theory that fits the evidence.
As an example, he demolishes Solipsism. Solipsism is generally supposed
to be irrefutable, on the grounds that if everything is a dream, then so
are the results of any test one could do.
Deutsch refutes that by taking the theory seriously (as he says) and
thinking out the ramifications. How is it that everything (specifically
all fields of science) forms a consistent whole, even things one does
not yet know? How do other, imaginary people know things that you do
not? How can they have skills that you cannot equal?
The end result is that you have a theory which includes all the
complexity of the apparent world, plus an additional notion that it is
the dream of a single entity. Thus it is actually a more complicated
theory, not a simpler one."
Sound familiar?
Realism is not a single theory, there are many forms of realism
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/>. You seem to have a "naive
realist" view of numbers, in that we can apprehend them directly or at
least that the properties of numbers are innate and yet are apprehended
directly. I see this theory as nonsensical as it offers no explanation
as to how properties of numbers match up with those of our thoughts
about numbers. Umm, maybe you think that by equating the dreams of
numbers to our inner thoughts, you can avoid this problem. OK. Nice
Move! But we are left empty handed when it comes time to explain
thoughts of change and the problem of arithmetic bodies.
--
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.
