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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
