: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
they have to be discovered. Numbers are such.
Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable.
Arithmetic
: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-09, 13:22:37
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/9/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must
happen as they're supposed to.
Hi Roger
: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-08, 08:36:43
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/8/2012 6:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You don't need to throw anything.
Parabolas are completely described mathematically.
OK, what
On 11/9/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must
happen as they're supposed to.
Hi Roger,
And this happens without an expectation of an explanation as to how
it is the case? You see, I reject this idea because there is an
On 08 Nov 2012, at 01:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P
/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of
actions. In physics this is
On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
This is not convincing as we can make statical
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp
there are claims that such and such know or believe or
On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp
there are
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 12:51:59
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11
the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 11:37:58
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote
: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 11:55:27
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case
On 11/5/2012 7:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I wouldn't be too hard on Russell, at least as far as logic goes.
He had no way of knowing of Godel's proof. And Whitehead had
joined him in the principia project. Certainly two of the brightest
minds that ever lived.
Roger Clough,
On 11/5/2012 8:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Science is based on and produces facts.
I don't think you would want to call these facts opinions
unless they referred to global warming.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
On 11/5/2012 8:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Do you know of any comp outputs that we could
examine ? I myself worship data.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
Hi Roger,
Ask Bruno. I think that he has
On 04 Nov 2012, at 17:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even
exist if the framework or
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there
are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to
widen our thinking of how the
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no
claims about?
We can make claim about them, but we don't need to do that for them
being true or false.
Who are the we that you refer to?
The universal numbers, or better the
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 13:33:49
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
they have to be discovered
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist
if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist,
therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence
On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is
the
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist
if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist,
therefore
On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted land and confessed that
he hadn't a clue to
On 11/4/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted
On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if
the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore
there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity.
Brent already debunked this. The truth of a
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Russell is still a pregödelian philosophers. Gödel refutes his general
philosophy of math in a precise way.
Any idea in what book or paper is Gödel's refutation? I wish to
read this!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because
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, 17:03:42
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote
:06:59
Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the
framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not
'truth
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the
framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is
not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity.
Stephen, in
On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not
infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's
metaphysics an enchanted land and confessed that
he hadn't a clue to what the meaning of pragmatism is.
Hi Roger,
On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented,
they have to be discovered. Numbers are such.
Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable.
Arithmetic or had to exist before man or
the Big Bang woujld not have
On 11/3/2012 1:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist
if the framework or theory that defines them does
On 11/3/2012 7:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or
theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 'truth' for a
non-exitence entity.
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is the
truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of that
truth? What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no
claims about?
You are causing
On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is the
truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of that truth? What is the
possible value of a statement that we can
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is
the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of
that truth? What is the
On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Horsefeathers http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horsefeathers! How is the
truth of an arithmetic statement separable
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal 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
On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal 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,
43 matches
Mail list logo
