On 5/2/2014 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 May 2014, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 2:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Someone said:
"So what does "existence" mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g.
perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,.."
So electrons did not exist until Rutherford. And even so, in a primitive form.
Electrons had to wait in the limb of partial existent things until Millican said:
Letæ„€ give mass to the Electron. And the electrons existed happily since then.. Only
for the people aware of the pattern creation.
Existence is relative to theory.
Theoretical existence might.
What's "theoretical existence"?
But the idea is that some theory can be correct, and in that case, even if *we* cannot
be sure, such an existence will be independent of you and the theories.
That's the idea that there is some mind-independent reality. A very good theory, or
should I say "meta-theory".
So electrons existed before Millican
That contradicts above.
Not at all. The theory of elementary particles is that they have existed since the
reheating at the end of inflation.
and protons existed after Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. Just as the Moon
exists after we discovered atoms.
? Are you serious?
The far away, and thus very old, galaxies exist since Hubble (the telescope)
detected them?
For a logician you make a lot unjustified inferences. I'd say protons failed to exist
before Gell-Mann showed they were made of quarks. I was just making the point that even
if you show, relative to some theory, that the Moon can made of arithmetic it doesn't mean
the Moon ceases to exist or that we can't still define "Moon" by pointing to that shiny
thing in the sky.
Brent
This contradicts your post to me where you told me that the moon is defined by
ostentation. Humans refer to that light spot in the sky before they knew about atoms.
You lost me. (Typo error?)
I think there are many sort of existence, and I prove that all machines can discover
them by instrospection: they are ExP(x), [] Ex [] P(x), for each of the many
arithmetical modalities. In arithmetic, those modal existences "emerge" logically from
the ontic existence: ExP(x).
Isn't "ontic existence" a redundancy, like "really real existence". I agree that there are
different kinds of existence, but I doubt that you can get from mathematical satisfaction
to Dr. Johnson.
Brent
Bruno
--
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/d/optout.
