Brent Meeker wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > 1Z wrote:
> >> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>>>> Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL....
> >>>>> I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
> >>>> If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain
> >>>> why you don't argue against it.
> >>>
> >>> I still don't understand what you mean by numbers does not exist at
> >>> all.
> >>> If that is "antiplatonism", it would help me if you could explain
> >>> what is "antiplatonism", or better what could it mean that the numbers
> >>> don't exist. We already agree they don't exist physically, but saying
> >>> they does not exist at all ???
> >> It means they don't non-physically exist either.
> >>
> >> Mathematical claims about existence can be true
> >> of false, but so can fictional claims like "Harry Potter exists
> >> in Middle Earth"
> >>
> >>> Even Licorne exists in some sense,
> >>> without referent in "the physical world", but with referent (meaning)
> >>> in some fantasy worlds?
> >> Fantasy worlds don't exist -- that's why they are called fantasy
> >> worlds, --
> >> Licornes don't exist, and Licornes' don't exist in fantasy worlds.
> >>
> >> Meaning is *not* the same thing as reference (Bedeutung). That is the
> >> box the anti-Platonist has climbed out of. Some terms have
> >> referents (non-linguistic items they denote), others have only
> >> "sense" (Sinn). Sense and reference are two dimensions
> >> aspects of meaning, but not every term has both.
> >> Sense is internal to langauge, it a relationship between a
> >> word/concept
> >> and others. It is like a dictionary definition, whereas reference is
> >> like
> >> defining a word by pointing and saying "it is one of those".
> >> But no-one has ever defined a Licorne that way, since
> >> there is no Licorne to be pointed to. Mathematical concepts
> >> are defined in terms of other mathematical concepts.
> >> Mathematical reference is impossible and unnecessary.
> >>
> >>> Why could numbers not exist in some similar
> >>> sense, except that the number fantasy kiks back (as Tom has recalled
> >>> recently).
> >> Saying that Licornes exist in a fantasy world
> >> is a cumbersome way of saying they don't
> >> literally exist. Well, numbers don't literally
> >> kick back. They don't interact causally
> >> with my reality.
> >
> > What about:
> > If (2^32582657)-1 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat.
> > In all possible worlds where I always keep my promises, I will not eat
> > my hat.
> > This is causally a result of the fact that (2^32582657)-1 is a prime
> > number.
> >
> > Tom
>
> I think a clue is in the fact that you picked (2^32582657 -1) instead of 7.
>
> Brent Meeker
OK. I'll go with 7. Compare
If 7 is a prime number, I will not eat my hat.
vs.
If this table holds up my coffee cup, I will not eat my hat.
Signed,
Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Nov 10 2006 - 17:26:54 PST