Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 15 Sep, 19:21, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/14 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: They don't exist physically. They do exist mathematically. It is all what is used. You mean they exist Platonically. For formlalists, such existence is a mere metaphor and has no

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 01:48, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 15 Sep, 15:19,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing Platonically, other than that different labels are being used. What precisely is the latter supposed to entail that the

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing Platonically, other than that different labels are being

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread m.a.
On 15 Sep, 15:19, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: A modest question. What's left of materialism (to even argue about) when orthodox theoretical physics itself reduces the world to virtual particles and one-dimensional strings? m.a. What makes you think they are not

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:30,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 15:51, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: the ocean of virtual particles which may give rise to all real particles exists somewhere between matter and thought. I see no reason to believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Flammarion
On 16 Sep, 16:02, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: The seven step series

2009-09-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
I give the solution. On 15 Sep 2009, at 16:30, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK? Take your time to compare with the last post, and to understand what happens. Training exercise: prove, using that notation, that 2^N is non enumerable. Hint: use a slightly different g. 2^N is non enumerable.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing Platonically, other than that different labels are being used. What precisely is the latter

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 16:02, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 13:49,

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com mailto:david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com:

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread m.a.
- Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 16 Sep, 15:51, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote: the ocean of

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: - Original Message - From: Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology On 16 Sep, 15:51, m.a. marty...@bellsouth.net wrote:

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/16 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: The discussion seems to have gotten stuck on whether it has been proven that physics can't be fundamental because it can't include consciousness. Has it? I thought we were discussing whether CTM made any meaningful commitments as a physical

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009-09-16 Thread David Nyman
2009/9/16 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: The knowabilitry of a claim about what powers numbers have can only depend on what labels are correctly attached. Petrol is not flammable just becaue I attached the label flammable to it. Petrol *Is* flammable, and that makes the label-attachment

Re: Lets get acquainted

2009-09-16 Thread A. Wolf
Just to make things clear--this spammer is not the same Anna. :P Anna (of the non-spamming variety) - Original Message - From: Anna SCat glennafranc...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:29 PM Subject: Lets get