On 19 Jan 2015, at 08:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/18/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/18/2015 7:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 January 2015 at 07:14, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/18/2015 12:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Because 2+2=4, and there's nothing you (or anyone/anything) can
do to change that.
Sure there is. 2+2=0 in mod 4 arithmetic - which is good for
describing some things.
I hope you are being flippant and don't really think that
disproves what Jason has said!
If in doubt consider whether the phrase "in mod 4 arithmetic" was
necessary to what you wrote. If it is, then arithmetic remains
necessarily so until you can come up with something that is self-
contradictory without any such qualifiers being required.
As you must know from my other posts, I don't consider self-
consistency to entail existence. So the fact that 2+2=4 is true
doesn't imply anything about existence.
It implies the existence of an equality relation between (2+2) and
4. Other facts, such as "the Nth state of the execution of the UD
contains a subject who believes his name is Brent Meeker" is a fact
that implies the existence of other things,
You continually assume that the truth of some mathematical relations
imply the existence of things (like a running UD), which begs the
question.
This is not assumed. the existence of the UD, and of all computations,
is proved from the usual (RA) axioms, using the existential quantifier
inference rules (admitted by all mathematicians, and physicians).
You are the one begging the question by assuming some other form of
existence, but then you must give the theory.
such as Brent Meeker's conscious state in which he doubts in the
significance of mathematical truths in relation to existence and
reality.
That you consider "mod 4" to be a qualifier is just a convention of
language. If we were talking about time what's six hours after
1900: answer 0100, because there the convention is mod 24. But my
serious point is that arithmetic is a model of countable things we
invented and it's not some magic that controls what exists.
What leads you to say relations between numbers are invented rather
than discovered?
Some are discovered, from the properties we invented (like every
number has a successor).
Will the person who proves (or disproves) the Goldbach conjecture
invent that truth (or falsehood), or will he discover it?
He will discover a sequence of inferences from Peano's axioms to
Goldbach's conjecture.
OK, but this will, usually, convince him, about a reality independent
of himself.
Bruno
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.
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/d/optout.
