# Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 12/16/2013 10:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
```
```

```
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
```
On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
```
```

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King
<stephe...@provensecure.com
<mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> 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".

```
All you need are truth values. If it is true that the recursive function containing an emulation of the wave function of the Hubble volume contains a self-aware process known as Brent which believes he has read an e-mail from Jason, then it is true that the aforementioned Brent believes he has read an e-mail from Jason. We don't need to add some additional "exists" property on top of it, it adds nothing.
```
```
It does if you don't have an axiomatic definition of all those predicates such that satisfaction of the predicate is provable. Otherwise you're just assuming there's a mathematical description that implies existence. That might be true, but I think it's not knowable that it's true. It's like "the laws of physics".
```
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