On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply *existence*.
It does not. Unless we believe in the axioms, which is the case for
elementary arithmetic.
But what does "believe in the axioms" mean. Do we really believe we
can *always* add one more? I find it doubtful. It's just a good
model for most countable things. So I can believe the axioms imply
the theorems and that "17 is prime" is a theorem, but I don't think
that commits me to any existence in the normal sense of "THAT exists".
Because you are chosing the physicalist ostensive definition of what
exists, like Aristotelians, but you beg the question here. The point
is that, in that case, you should not say "yes" to the doctor.
Bruno
Brent
But then we believe in the existence of prime numbers, and in the
many relative computational states.
--
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.
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
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.
