Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

From: Flammarion <>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:45:21 -0700 (PDT)

On 04 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
> > ... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
> > exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
> > existence. The counterargument is that "existence" in mathematical
> > statements is merely metaphorical. That is what is being argued
> > backwards
> I have never said that numbers exists because there are true
> mathematical statements asserting their existence.

> I am just saying that in the comp theory, I have to assume that such
> truth are not dependent of me, or of anything else. It is necessary to
> even just enunciate Church thesis. A weakening of Church thesis is 'a
> universal machine exists". In the usual mathematical sense, like with
> the theorem asserting that 'prime numbers exists.

There is no usual sense of "exists" as the material I posted

You have to be assuming that the existence of the UD is literal
and Platonic since you care concluding that I am beign generated by
it and
my existeince is not merely metaphorical. The arguemnt doesn't go

> I just make explicit that elementary true arithmetical statements are
> part of the theory. You are free to interpret them in a formlaistic
> way, or in some realist way, or metaphorically. The reasoning does not
> depend on the intepretation, except that locally you bet you can 'save
> your relative state' in a digital backup, for UDA.

IF formalism is true there is no UD. It simply doesn't exist
and doesn't genarate anything.

>And you don't need
> really that for the 'interview' of the universal machine.

Of course I need a real machine for a real interview.

> All theories in physics uses at least that arithmetical fragment. But
> fermions and bosons becomes metaphor, with comp.

Mathematical existence is metaphorical if mathematical existence is

Their existence is literal if mathematical existence is metaphorical.

> May be very fertile
> one. Like galaxies and brains.
> Scientist does not commit themselves ontologically. They postulate
> basic entities and relations in theories which are always
> hypothetical.

False. There is nothing hypothetical about ingeous rock.

> I am just honest making explicit my use of the non
> constructive excluded middle in the arithmetical realm.
> You get stuck at step zero by a bullet you are ntroducing yourself, I
> 'm afraid.
> Bruno
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Fri Sep 11 2009 - 08:45:21 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST