On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:43, Stephen P. King wrote:

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 the crypto-solipsism of your philosophical stance! I am not alone is noticing this! (See the linked passage here 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?

I don't see anything relevant for our (unclear) issue.

Realism is not a single theory, there are many forms of 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 said innate for numbers, with the logic and their laws. I don't say innate for humans in the usual psychological sense. You are digressing.

I see this theory as nonsensical

Mee too, but this is not related to arithmetical realism.

as it offers no explanation as to how properties of numbers match up with those of our thoughts about numbers.

Comp makes that clear, as the reality is arithmetical, or equivalent.

Umm, maybe you think that by equating the dreams of numbers to our inner thoughts, you can avoid this problem.

This follows from comp. I have not chosen this.

OK. Nice Move! But we are left empty handed when it comes time to explain thoughts of change and the problem of arithmetic bodies.

I am just formulating the problem, and solve a part of it.



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