SV: Only logic is necessary?

No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... LN -Ursprungligt meddelande-

RE: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. Of course that goes for the notion of possibility also... That sounds

SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Jesse Mazer

Re: Only logic is necessary?

Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:14, Brent Meeker a écrit : Cooper says that numbers come from the evolutionary advantage of being able to count. But he clearly talk about Human's numbers. Numbers per se are what make If being able to count an evolutionary advantage. Of course that doesn't explain

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Le 08-juil.-06, à 22:10, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just saying that I have faith in the fact that the number 17 is prime, independently of me. That 17 is prime is true, independent of you? Or that 17 exists, independent from you, as a a prime number. ? A priori the

Re: A calculus of personal identity

Le 09-juil.-06, à 06:50, James N Rose a écrit : My email has not gotten through accurately this week. Just wondering if you had replied to my post of July 2nd or just let it go? I think I did. Perhaps you could find it on the archive. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not contradict any laws KNOWN TO US. Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which

SV: Only logic is necessary?

-Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:10 Till: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ämne: Re: Only logic is necessary? Numbers per se are what make If being able to count an evolutionary

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Le 09-juil.-06, à 10:07, Jesse Mazer a écrit : Lennart Nilsson wrote: No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they refer to. Of course that

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Bruno Marchal wrote: A priori the first one: [17 is prime] is independent of me. But now I accept also the first order predicate rule that if someone prove 17 is prime, he can infer Ex(x is prime), so that I can take the proposition it exists a number which is prime as independent of me

SV: Only Existence is necessary?

I really think that we should infer both the substantial world and the numerical world from the middleground so to speak, from our observations. -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Bruno Marchal Skickat: den 9 juli 2006 14:36

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 09-juil.-06, � 14:26, 1Z a �crit : So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ? I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-juil.-06, à 14:26, 1Z a écrit : So how do insubstantial numbers generate a substantial world ? I guess there is no substantial world and I explain in all details here http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ (and on this list) why insubstantial numbers generate

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

1Z wrote: Lennart Nilsson wrote: No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean outside a real biological setting. I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not contradict any laws KNOWN TO US. Cooper shows that logical laws are

RE: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Lennart Nilsson wrote: We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the real world,

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: Lennart Nilsson wrote: We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: Lennart Nilsson wrote: We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. But in this case we are using

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what members of a species think or vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in the evolutionary biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is making valid

Re: SV: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Jesse Mazer wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Jesse Mazer wrote: Lennart Nilsson wrote: We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course. But in this case we

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

1Z wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what members of a species think or vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in the evolutionary biological sense. So the majority can be wrong. Cooper is

Re: SV: Only logic is necessary?

Brent Meeker wrote: 1Z wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: You misunderstand population models. It's not a question of what members of a species think or vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in the evolutionary biological sense. So the majority can be

Re: Only Existence is necessary?

Stephen Paul King wrote: little discussion has been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen? Hi Stephen Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can point you to is John

RE: Re: Only Existence is necessary?

George Levy writes: StephenPaulKingwrote: Iwouldliketopointoutthatyoumayhaveinadvertentlyveeredinto theproblemthatIseeinthe"YesDoctor"belief!Itisentirely unverifiable. Itisunverifiablefromthe3rdpersonperspective.Fromthefirst personperspectiveitisperfectlyverifiable."I"willnotobserveany