On 6/19/2014 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why is that a contradiction?
In fact there are two contradictions.
I explain the contradiction which is relate to about.
'To prove A', classically, is equivalent to showing that ~A leads to a contradiction,
that is ~A is inconsistent. This mirrors the fact that []A is the same as ~<> ~A.
To prove the existence of anything is equivalent to prove that its non existence leads
to a contradiction, or "0=1".
So can you prove that the non-existence of Bruno Marchal leads to "0=1"?
So you cannot prove *validly* the existence of Primitive Matter (PM, hereafter) and keep
your belief (above) that the non existence of primitive matter is consistent with
arithmetic.
That's only true if you prove the existence of PM from the same axioms as arithmetic. And
why shouldn't PM exist without a proof.
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
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.
