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

```
On 17 Dec 2013, at 07:01, meekerdb wrote:```
```
```
```On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
```
```

```
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
```On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
```
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
```Dear LizR,

```
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be one wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work out its properties" is impossible: probability zero.
```
```
I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough number, say 10^80, that observers can exist, we can then ask whether such observers could work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80.
```
Can we?  Whenever I add 1 to 10^80 I get 10^80 in spite of Peano.
```
```
```
This does not make Peano false. You just work in a context which is not a model of Peano. You could ay group theory is false, because (N, +) is not a group.
```

```
```

```
Use a programming language such as python or Java which supports big integers. It will let you add 1 to 10^80.
```
```
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean "a very big number" which of course depends on context. I generally do applied physics and engineering and so 10^80+1 = 10^80 for physical variables.
```
```
Natural numbers are not supposed to be physical variable, nor real numbers, nor big number as handled by a small computer, etc.
```
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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