Peter Jones writes:
> 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.
What could it possibly mean for numbers to "exist" in the sense you claim
they do not? Could I be mugged by a burly number 6 in a dark alley? I don't
think that even number-worshipping Pythagoras would have entertained
such a notion.
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 09:03:04 PDT