On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or at least (observer-centric), in that numbers only
have properties when observed/checked/computed by some entity somewhere.
If there can exist a physical process that is a bisimulation of the
computation of
the test for primeness, then the primeness is true. Otherwise, we are merely
guessing, at best.
When we check the primaility of some number N, we may not know whether or not it is
prime. However, eventually we run the computation and find out either it was, or it wasn't.
My question to you is when was it determined that N was or was not prime? Any time we
re-check the calculation we get the same result. Presumably even causally isolated
observers will also get the same result. If humans get wiped out and cuttlefish take
over the world and build computers, and they check to see if N, is prime is it possible
for them to get a different result?
My contention is that it is not possible to get a different result, that N was always
prime, or it was always not prime, and it would be prime (or not prime) even if we
lacked the means or inclination to check it.
That's fine. But it's a leap to go from the truth value of 17 is prime, to 17 exists.
That's what I mean by mathematicians assuming that "satisfying a predicate" = "exists".
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
