On 10/7/2015 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 10/7/2015 11:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:2015-10-07 20:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>: On 10/7/2015 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But here Clark contradicts all the textbook on the subject. In fact all what John Clarks says here is that you cannot get a physical object from an arithmetical computations, which is trivial, but does not prove the existence of the physical object, as physical is a relative relational notion in arithmetic. Those type of argument are only the usual knocking on the table. Which is very good evidence for the existence of a physical object. But it is no evidence at all about the ontological status of such objectIt's ontological state is "exists". Bruno wrote above, "...does not prove the existence of the physical object, as physical is a relative relational notion in arithmetic." My point is that you don't have prove the existence of physical objects from Peano's axioms - there's much stronger evidence readily available.If by stronger evidence you mean your own personal experience, this does not count as proof of the existence of the physical object. All your experience can be used to prove the existence of is that thought.
Proof is for mathematicians and it's only relative to axioms. Evidence is from perception and if you don't accept it as evidence you'll have a hard time getting through the morning.
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.
