Hi Bruno Marchal and Stephen, http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/leibniz.html
"Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth: truths of reason [which are non-contradictory, are always either true or false], and truths of fact [which are not always either true or false]. Truths of reason are a priori, while truths of fact are a posteriori. Truths of reason are necessary, permanent truths. Truths of fact are contingent, empirical truths. Both kinds of truth must have a sufficient reason. Truths of reason have their sufficient reason in being opposed to the contradictoriness and logical inconsistency of propositions which deny them. Truths of fact have their sufficient reason in being more perfect than propositions which deny them." Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 07:13:24 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm 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 No?, 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. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.