Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le vendredi 18 août 2006 11:52, 1Z a écrit :
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > Peter Jones writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
> > > > > Frankly I don't think so. Set platonism can be considered as a bold
> > > > > assumption, but number platonism, as I said you need a sophisticated
> > > > > form of finitism to doubt it. I recall it is just the belief that the
> > > > > propositions of elementary arithmetic are independent of you.
> > > >
> > > > Arithemtical Platonism is the belief that mathematical
> > > > structures *exist* independently of you,
> > > > not just that they are true independently of you.
> > >
> > > What's the difference?
> >
> > Things that exist are available for causal interaction. Numbers aren't.
> You were defining arithmetical platonism.... and now you define existing. Your
> two comments are contradictory.
Not even remotely. I fact, what I have said can be written as two valid
syllogisms.
Existence is availability for causal interaction
Numbers are not available for causal interaction
Numbers do not exist
Platonism is the claim that numbers exist
Numbers do not exist
Platonism is false
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 08:23:34 PDT