On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/22/2013 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2013, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/21/2013 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If you don't take arithmetic as primitive, I can prove that you
cannot derive both addition and multiplication, nor the existence
of computer. Then everything around me does not make sense. If
you believe you can derive them, then do it. But you proceed like
a literary philosophers, so I have doubt you can derive addition
and multiplication in the sense I would wait for.
Is this statement correctly written? How is it coherent that I
need to derive from arithmetic that which is already in arithmetic?
Stephen, you are the one telling me that you don't assume the
numbers, so it is normal that I ask you how you derive them form
what you assume.
I will differ to David Chalmers work to demonstrate a thorough
demolition of materialism. I see numbers are an aspect of mental
content and not independently existing entities, so we have an
irreconcilable difference in our thinking.
Then comp is meaningless. Even Church thesis is meaningless. Most
papers you referred to becomes meaningless.
It seems to me that the physical activity of counting is the
source of derivation of arithmetics!
But you have to derive the physical activity first, then.
I no longer see the utility of trying to prove the existence of
the content of 1p experience.
I was talking of deriving physics. We accept content of experience in
comp, but then we can recover it from the numbers complex behavior
when looking at themselves. Then physics is or should be explained
from that, as UDA explains.
I experience it and can bet that you do as well. That is my theory
of a physical world and its activity in a nutshell.
That's the part where we agree.
I explain experience from computer science, and it seems you disagree
with this, but then I don't understand why you keep defending comp as
it is clear it does not fit with your theory.
Of cource we cannot just consider the activity of a single entity
but that of many entities, each counting in their own ways and
developing communication methods between themselves.
Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for
material things to have representations of things, intensionality,
such as numbers.
yes, even weak materialism. But your point is not valid, unless you
prove it first.
What benefit comes from this "proof"?
To get an explanation.
Numbers fail, as a ground of ontology, as they can not transform
themselves and remain the same. Matter is exactly that which can
transform and remain the same!
? (looks like a prose to me).
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