On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:54:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:42, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote: > >> > >>>On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>>> > >>>>On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies. > >>>>> > >>>>>On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed > >>>>>>(to select > >>>>>>and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X > >>>>>>and Nu which > >>>>>>would emulate validly "Brunos and Davids" finding that > >>>>>>reason, and > >>>>>>proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to > >>>>>>arithmetic, which > >>>>>>would be false, and that is a mathematical > >>>>>>contradiction, even if > >>>>> > >>>>>Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to > >>>>>arithmetic and the primitive matter? > >>>> > >>>>That could happen, but that could also not happen. > >>> > >>>Then the proof is not false. > >> > >>Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen. > > > >Are you trying to suggest that you've derived a contradiction here? If > >so, then I don't see it. > > Are you OK with the fact that the existence of primitive matter is > consistent with arithmetic, but that the non existence of primitive > matter is also consistent with arithmetic? >
Yes. > If yes, the contradiction comes from the fact that the zombies (in > this context) in arithmetic would be able to validly prove the > existence of primitive matter, when assuming Peter Jones could > *validly* argues (= proves) that there is primitive matter and > simultaneously say "yes" to the doctor. > Why is that a contradiction? And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove* the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact. > If no, then you have to tell me which of 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... *is* > primitive matter (only the standard numbers, as only them belongs to > all models of the arithmetical theories (RA, PA). But you can't do > that, as we already know at this stage that the appearance of the > primitive matter involves infinities of arithmetical relations. > > We cannot decide to put 0 and its successors in the primitively > material without doing a category error. > It seems like we're talking finitism here, rather than primitive matter. But in any case, I answered yes, above. The properties of arithmetic shouldn't depend on the existence of primitive matter. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
