On 04 Nov 2012, at 17:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even
exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not
exist, therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity.
Brent already debunked this. The truth of a statement does not
need the existence of the statement. You confuse again the truth
of 1+1=2, with a possible claim of that truth, like "1+1=2".
Horsefeathers! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement
separable from any claim of that truth?
Explain me how the truth of an arithmetical truth depends on its
being claimed or not.
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there
are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to
widen our thinking of how the potentials of acts is important.
I don't understand how you reason.
What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no
We can make claim about them, but we don't need to do that for them
being true or false.
Who are the "we" that you refer to?
The universal numbers, or better the Löbian one.
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
For more options, visit this group at