Tom Caylor wrote:
> 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.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/mat-imp.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-relevance/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 20:14:58 PST