On 14 Feb 2011, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/14/2011 1:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 2/13/2011 5:21 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:18 am, Brent
On 15 February 2011 00:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've tried to argue before that the causal closure of physics is a
very strong claim that is also very restrictive if applied
consistently. Trouble is, in my view, it very rarely is so applied.
The Hard Problem, and the corresponding
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing (me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I define AR by bivalence.
If you believe the contrary,
could you give me a form of CT which does not
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach conjecture is either true or false? If
you agree with this, then
On 15 February 2011 13:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a number
I start from the assumption that I can survive through a digital backup. So
locally I am a number, in that sense. But this concerns
On Feb 15, 12:56 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 00:42, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've tried to argue before that the causal closure of physics is a
very strong claim that is also very restrictive if applied
consistently. Trouble is, in my view, it
On Feb 15, 1:16 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing (me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I define AR by bivalence.
Fine. Then it
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe that Goldbach
On Feb 15, 1:54 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2011 13:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not a realist about maths. You must be because you exist
and you think you are a number
I start from the assumption that I can survive through a digital
On 15 Feb 2011, at 01:42, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/14/2011 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Programs are not written with physical instantiation in mind...
even if eventually you run it.
Really? Did people write programs before computers were invented?
If you abstract from Babbage
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:09, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:16 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 19:53, 1Z wrote:
CT needs arithmetical platonism/realism.
No it doesn't. It may need bivalence, which is not the same thing
(me,
passim)
Reread the definition of AR. I
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 13:35, 1Z
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
In science we never know if our premisses and conclusions are
true or
not.
I can still resist the conclusion by *believing* Platonism
to be false, while believing comp to be true.
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:27 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2011, at 20:05, 1Z
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal
On 2/15/2011 12:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal
On Feb 15, 8:39 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 12:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com
On 2/15/2011 11:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 7:28 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/15 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 6:13 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 18:16, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2011, at 16:23,
On 2/15/2011 1:01 PM, 1Z wrote:
The difference is I can choose what are/who are/the behavior of...
Sherlock holmes/pink unicorn/whatever... not the numbers once an
axiomatic system is chosen.
No, it's only a difference of degree. You can't choose Sherlock Holmes
to be an
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find it...numbers are wholly defined by a set of axioms, it seems that
they are more real than fictional characters.
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find it...numbers are wholly defined by a set of axioms, it seems that
On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:22 pm, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Whatever question you can
ask about a number has a factual answer, although you may not know it or
how to find
26 matches
Mail list logo
