### Re: Numbers

On 03 May 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote: Never argue with a logician! I try to insert some re-remarks into ''-induced lines below John On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked: are you OK with this?

### Re: Numbers

Bruno, I apologize for taking so much time from you to reply. And thanks for the highly entertaining reading how your mind (to which mine is no knowledgeable match) rebuffs. One question if you still can take one: *JM: I would leave out mind, matter, consciousness* *Br: Well, that is what I

### Re: Numbers

On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked: are you OK with this? - NO, I am not OK: as I follow, 0 is NOT a number, it does not change a number. 0 * 1000 = 0. Well, I have to say you are the first to refuse to 0 the number status, with the notable exception of the

### Re: Numbers

Never argue with a logician! I try to insert some re-remarks into ''-induced lines below John On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 May 2013, at 18:03, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked:* are you OK with this?* - NO, I am not OK: as I follow, 0 is NOT a

### Re: Numbers

On 01 May 2013, at 22:09, John Mikes wrote: Bruno asked why I have problems how to figure out 'numbers'. In his texts (as I remember and I have no quotes at hand) the world can be construed from a large enough amount of numbers in simple arithmetical ways (addition-subtraction). Also:

### Re: Numbers

Bruno asked:* are you OK with this?* - NO, I am not OK: as I follow, 0 is NOT a number, it does not change a number. But how do you * A D D * a number to another one if it is not identified as a quantity? Can you add an electric train to the taste of a lolly-pop? You speak about 'axioms' (- in

### Re: Numbers

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:09:03 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: Bruno asked why I have problems how to figure out *'numbers'*. * * In his texts (as I remember and I have no quotes at hand) the world can be construed from a large enough amount of numbers in simple arithmetical ways

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 02 Dec 2012, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote: On 12/2/2012 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by the rules of inference. This makes no

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 12/2/2012 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote: On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

:28:31 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by the rules of inference. In applications

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 18:20:11 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his concept

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-11-02, 18:20:11 *Subject:* Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-30, 11:17:12 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/30/2012 9:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Hintakka's concept of truth is what is called pragmatic truth, or scientific truth. It's the same

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote: And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or the truth of necessary logic. True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by the rules of inference. In applications it is interpreted as if it were the

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

- Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 10:18:16 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/5/2012 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Plato in the end confessed that the best he could offer was a likely story. I see no reason to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible, for that matter. Dear Roger, This tells me that you are OK with arguments from authority. This

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

-05, 13:39:57 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/5/2012 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Plato in the end confessed that the best he could offer was a likely story. I see no reason to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible, for that matter. Dear Roger

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 03 Nov 2012, at 16:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/4/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Does the One have a Concept of The One as its unique 1p? I think the inner God, alias the arithmetical 1p (not arithmetical in the logician sense, but still applying to the machine) , alias Bp p (Theaetetus on Bp) can be said to be a unique

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ?

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not? The One is not a theory. Why does it have to

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I read Russell. Never found something that non sensical. If the basic object have no properties, I don't see how anything can emerge from it. You have to explain your point, not to refer to the literature. Dear Bruno, Did you notice that I

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:12, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically implement them. Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation. So your thinking about them is not a

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are the one saying that truth is limited to the means of knowing!!! Yes and no, Truth is limited to the *possibility* of knowledge of it. In the absence of the possibility of a statement

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his concept of game theoretic semantics to derive truth valuations. I read this. yes. I don't see relevant at all. I do appreciate his

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not?

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm 2012/11/2 Stephen P. King On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically implement them. Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation. ? ? So your

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 18:12:19 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 18:16:09 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are the one saying

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 23:17:40 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 11/2/2012 8:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Either you can have emerging properties of nothing or you can't. Either there is infinite regress or not, whatever is true (and one or the other is), it's

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/3/2012 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King 1 + 1 =2 is a necessary truth, not a fact. It is always true. A priori. So there are necessary truths such as arithmetical truths which were here before the contingent world of facts was created. And will always be. Hi Roger,

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/3/2012 8:51 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The platonic realm is nothing. Intelligence is nothing. Life itself is nothing. 1-1 = 0 2-2 = 0 3-3 = 0 ... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 22:50, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: can stop reading as you need to assume the numbers (or anything Turing equivalent) to get them.

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 5:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 11/1/2012 12:23 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically implement them. Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation. So your thinking about them is not a physical act? Too much ambiguous. Even staying in

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: bundles of arithmetic statements generate many individual observers that in turn interact (which I model via a combination of cyclic gossiping on graphs and bisimulations) with each other to define a common physical world which in turn acts to

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are the one saying that truth is limited to the means of knowing!!! Yes and no, Truth is limited to the *possibility* of knowledge of it. In the absence of the possibility of a statement being true (or false), there is not such thing as true

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his concept of game theoretic semantics to derive truth valuations. I read this. yes. I don't see relevant at all. I do appreciate his linking of intention and intension, but it is a bit

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

2012/11/2 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically implement them. Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation. So your thinking about them is not a

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/2/2012 8:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Either you can have emerging properties of nothing or you can't. Either there is infinite regress or not, whatever is true (and one or the other is), it's not an obstacle. Hi Questin, It depends on whether you think of Nothing as merely an

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/1/2012 1:19 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i) Let B be a fixed

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Dear Cowboy, One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/1/2012 6:54 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 31 Oct 2012, at 19:59, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:15

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:58, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/31/2012 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can they dream? Yes, the universal

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:18, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 05:27, meekerdb wrote: On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying no to the doctor. It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT understanding what Church thesis is about, as to show it

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 06:19, meekerdb wrote: On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: (actually it was Bruno) Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ...

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 01 Nov 2012, at 14:25, Stephen P. King wrote: But I agree with comp up to the strong version of step 8! But then you have to find the flaw in step 8. as step 8 is done in comp, without adding any assumptions, of course. I accept comp with a weak version of step 8 or, I think

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 11/1/2012 12:23 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it as I don't believe in ontologically primitive objects that have particular properties. Then I don't see how you can make an ontological bet. You're at the table,

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can they dream? Yes, the universal numbers can have concept. Dear Bruno, Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a

### Re: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-30, 14:50:24 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 10/30/2012 10:39 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:52, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote: If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson? If there are no humans, Conan Doyle would not have created the Holmes and Watson characters, to which the use of the names refer, and the

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM,

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Dear Cowboy, One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to explain make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it, I am trying to finely parse the difference between the logic of temporal

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/31/2012 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can they dream? Yes, the universal numbers can have concept. Dear Bruno, Let's start

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Dear Cowboy, One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to explain make any sense to you? Without

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying no to the doctor. It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT understanding what Church thesis is about, as to show it consistent you need the diagonalization, which use

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i) Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 29 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/29/2012 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote: [Bruno Marchal wrote:] So numbers are universal and can be treated mathematically as always. I agree, but the concept of numbers has no

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers themselves. Truth applies to proposition, or sentences representing them for some machine/numbers. If

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers themselves. Truth applies to proposition, or sentences

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can they dream? Yes, the universal numbers can have concept. Dear Bruno, Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a universal number and how it (and not ordinary numbers)

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers themselves.

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 10:39 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers and their

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My argument is

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 11:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 12:51

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 11:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/30/2012 1:43

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2 = 1+1. The former requires someone who understands the notation to interpret it, but the latter is the interpretation, i.e. the concept. A concept has meaning by definition, otherwise

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:58 PM, meekerdb wrote: If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson? Brent If there there where no humans and no human level consciousness, what meaning would the sentence It is true that Holmes assistant

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: [SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular mathematical object and one of its particular properties, then how does 17 is prime come to mean anything at all? I agree with that.

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote: I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2 = 1+1. The former requires someone who understands the notation to interpret it, but the latter is the interpretation, i.e. the concept. A

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: [SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular mathematical object and one of its particular properties, then how does 17 is prime come to

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Brent, What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions? Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that are used to represent a proposition in a particular

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: [SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular mathematical object and one of its particular

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Brent, What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions? Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that are used to

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 2:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote: [SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Brent, What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions? Tokens are the physical elements (e.g.

### Re: Numbers in Leibniz

On 10/29/2012 1:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Still waiting for the storm to shut things down. Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet, in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that they are simply numbers, with no ontological status. Sort of like space or

### Re: Numbers in Leibniz

On 29 Oct 2012, at 06:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Still waiting for the storm to shut things down. Take care. Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet, in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that they are simply numbers, with no ontological status.

### Re: Numbers in Leibniz

On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote: So numbers are universal and can be treated mathematically as always. I agree, but the concept of numbers has no meaning prior to the existence of objects that can be counted. To think otherwise is equivalent to claiming that

### Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm

On 10/29/2012 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote: [Bruno Marchal wrote:] So numbers are universal and can be treated mathematically as always. I agree, but the concept of numbers has no meaning prior to the existence of objects that can be

### Re: Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitantsofmonads

Hi Richard Ruquist Absolutely. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/2/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-01, 16:51:44 Subject: Re: Numbers

### Re: Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads

, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-30, 14:22:03 Subject: Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads On 9/30/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno