On 19 Jan 2015, at 01:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2015 6:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
<snip>
3. Do you think the existence of such a demi-god follows from the
UDA/arithmetical realism?
This is a tricky question, and probably an open problem. Empirically
it is also difficult.
Well, by arithmetical realism, we know that most sets of numbers are
not computable, and their existence might as well be not provable by
simple Löbian machines, but they exists in some platonic sense (beyond
arithmetical realism).
The only interesting question is: does those non computable sets have
a role in the winning measure?
Probably not. But in any case I'm not a fan of arithmetical
realism. Truth =/= existence.
Truth =/= of existence. No doubt on this.
But existential proposition can be true, or false, and so arithmetical
truth; concretized by the set of Gödel number of true arithmetical
sentences" contains all true existential formula.
You are only defending a non classical logic when you say that 2+2=4
does not entail existence. In classical logic ExP(x) does follow from
P(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)))))))))) or similar. From 2+2=4 you can derive
Ex(2+x=4).
I bet Jason already answered this correctly.
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.
