On Feb 23, 4:10 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> > On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> > On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> > On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot > >> interfer > >> >> at > >> >> >> all > >> >> >> >> >> >> with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct > >> physics > >> >> has > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> >> reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an > >> >> >> invisible > >> >> >> >> >> >> epiphenomena. > > >> >> >> >> >> > Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent > >> >> numbers. > >> >> >> >> >> > Numbers > >> >> >> >> >> > have to exist for the conclusion to follow > > >> >> >> >> >> Physics is not eliminated, on the contrary, physics is > >> explained > >> >> >> from > > >> >> >> >> >> something non physical. > > >> >> >> >> > The anti realist position is not that numbers are some > >> existing > >> >> non- > >> >> >> >> > physical > >> >> >> >> > thing: it is that they are not existent at all. > > >> >> >> >> If numbers don't exist at all, what does a statement that seems > >> >> very > >> >> >> much > >> >> >> >> like a non-fictional and true statement, like "I have two hands" > >> >> mean? > > >> >> >> > It's asserting the existence of hands, not numbers. > > >> >> >> You can't have one without the other. > >> >> >> The statement "2 hands exists" requires that "2 of something" (the > >> >> number > >> >> >> 2) > >> >> >> exists. > > >> >> > The idea that "2 hands exist" implies that 2 exists implies that 3 > >> >> > things exist (the left hand, the right hand and "two") > > >> >> Right. You just made an argument that ALL numbers do exist. Do you > >> have a > >> >> problem with that? > > >> > It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum > > >> That's what I thought, so I guessed you have a problem with the > >> conclusion. > >> What's absurd with all numbers existing? > > > What's absurd is the 2=3 > > That 2 exists implies that 3 things exists does not mean 2=3. And 2=3 is not > necessarily absurd, just an unusual expression. It might mean "2*...=3*..."
Anything might mean anything if the symbols are reinterpreted arbitrarily. However, one must assume that the speaker does not intend such an interpretation > > 1Z wrote: > > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> >> If you have two hands, two does exists, otherwise you couldn't > >> have > >> >> >> two > >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> something, right? > > >> >> >> > And if you have none of something, none exists. > > >> >> >> Well, so zero exists, I have no problem with that. > > >> >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> >> Or is it a fictional statement? > > >> >> >> > Nope. You seem to think every word in a true sentence must > >> >> >> > have a separate referent. However, "and", "or", "is", "not" etc > >> >> >> > do not have separate referents. A true sentence must refer *as a > >> >> >> > whole* > >> >> >> > to some state of affairs. That is the only requirement. > > >> >> >> Not every word must have an object as referent, but every word > >> implies > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> existence of an object that is connected to the word. > > >> >> > That's a straight contradiction. > > >> >> I expressed myself badly here... > > >> >> I wanted to express that some words don't seem to have a direct > >> referent > >> >> in > >> >> the sense of an object, but that it is possible to objectify them and > >> >> then > >> >> they do have a referent. > > >> > What is objectify ? > > >> In this case I mean the linguistic act of transforming a non-noun word > >> into > >> a noun that expresses the same concept. > >> I'm not sure if this can be properly called objectifying but this was the > >> word that came to my mind. > > > Why should something have necessary and eternal existence > > just because someone rephrased a sentence? > > That's not the reason that it has existence. So what is? > The rephrasing is only intended > to make it more clear that a referent exists, because it is easier to think > of a referent as an object that is lingustically expressed as a noun. > 1Z wrote: > > >> >> Probably I should just say that every word has a referent. > > >> > Clearly not, e.g unicorn. > > >> Of course it has a referent. If you say "unicorn" this refers to ideas > >> about > >> an mythological creature. > > > An idea about a unicorn is an individual of the type <idea>, Unicorns > > do not exist because ideas about them do. > > But unicorns *themselves* can also be conceived of ideas. What does "conceived of ideas" mean? > I have no problem of saying unicorns don't exist, but this only means "not > existing in the same sense as horses do" and doesn't exclude the existence > of unicorns in some more general sense. You have the theory that they exist in some half baked sense, and I have the theory that they don't exist at all. Mine is more parsimonious. > 1Z wrote: > > > The Sense of a term is an idea in any case. There is no reason > > why the Reference should bend back on itself an be an idea > > as well. (Except for a few exceptions such as the referent > > of "concept", "idea", etc). > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference > > The distinction between sense and reference makes sense on some level, but > ultimately it still makes sense to conceive of the object that is referred > to as the internal representation of (another, yet on some level the same) > object that is referred to; that is, reference can be reference to sense. No, that doesn't make sense in a Sense/Reference theory, because it just ignores the distinction made in those theories between Sense and Reference. It's just Reference twice over, only called a different name the second time. What's the point of that? > When it comes to abstract things like sense, reference and meaning it is > inevitable that we conflate them because their meaning is broad, overlapping > and vague. The distinction between Sense and Reference is *not* vague in Fregean theory. In any case, of you are faced with a vague theory you should make it precise, not draw extravagant metaphysical conclusions form it. > 1Z wrote: > > >>That it does not refer to an animal in the same > >> way as "horse" does, does not mean it has no referent at all. > > > But if number terms just refer to ideas, that is not > > Platonism, that is Psychologism > > I think it is no coincidence that platonism uses the word ideas to refer to > abstract (and "more real") things, If think it is. > though it does not mean idea as "ideas in > people's heads" but ideas as self-existent things. Yes, the original sense of "idea" is mind-independent, but your justification of unicorn as referring to ideas was in the later sense of "idea" as a concept in the head. > Unicorns do manifest as ideas in people's heads, but there still may be a > self-existing idea of unicorns that manifests in many other structures (for > example real unicorns on other planets, or ideas in the head of aliens). There may be, but you need to argue that there must or should be. If ideas-in-the-head are enough, why would we *need* ideas-outside-the- head? > And I didn't even argue that numbers are just ideas in people's heads. Even > if unicorns are just ideas in people's heads, numbers need not be. if you can't argue that every word has a mind-independent referent, you need some other way of arguing that numbers do. To say that is not impossible is no answer to Occam's razor. > Also, I'm not defending platonism, but just that numbers exist. If they are > just real as ideas in peoples heads, then ok. Then ideas really are the > fundament of reality (if we accept comp). That doesn't follow at all. If numbers are ideas in people's heads, then they don't exist in universes without observers, or periods of time in this uniwerse before intelligence evolved, because then they don't have heads to exist in. And that is still true give computationalism. >It is a weird consequence but it > is possible. > > > > 1Z wrote: > > >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >> If it is meaningful to use the word "and", "something and > >> something" > >> >> or a > >> >> >> conjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the word "or", > >> >> "something > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> something" or a disjunction exists, if it is meaningful to use the > >> >> word > >> >> >> "is", > > >> >> > To say "there is an existing statue of liberty" says nothing more > >> >> > that "there is a statue of liberty" > > >> >> That depends how you interpret the sentence. In general I agree, but > >> >> "there > >> >> is an existing statue of liberty" might be used with "existing" in the > >> >> sense > >> >> of existing in the stable consensus reality. > > >> >> So you could say "there is an existing statue of liberty" (that exists > >> in > >> >> the consensus reality) in contrast to "there is a 'non-existant' > >> statue > >> >> of > >> >> serfdom" (that is absent in the consensus reality; but it does exists > >> in > >> >> my > >> >> imagination). > > >> >> Your comment is probably meant to imply there is something wrong with > >> >> what I > >> >> wrote, but I don't get what it is. > > >> > It is that words like "is" don't need a referent > > >> I don't know what you mean by that. In what way do words "need" anything? > > >> My point is that "is" clearly has a referent, namely existence. > >> Existence exists, I hope you agree with that. > > > Existence is the referent of "existence", not of "Is". > > "Is" is used to refer to the existence of objects. Distinguishing between > verbs and nouns is just a characteristic of language. "Existence of > Unicorns: Truth" expresses the same as "Unicorns truly exist." or "The > Present. Sandwich as meal. The eater: Me." expresses the same as "I eat a > sandwich.". I don't see your point > 1Z wrote: > > > I have already pointed out that the "is" > > of predication can be used with non-existent > > subjects. > > Yes, but still "is" inevitably refers to existence/being No it doesn't, for the reason I gave: the subject is non existent >(because "to be" > means "to posses BEing"), so it refers to existent objects. > That it may be used to "non-existent" objects merely indicates that it > refers to objects that are non-existent *in some context*. Such as reality.... > Existent objects are sometimes non-existent in a relative sense. For example > non-existent at a specific time or place (An egg does not exist in my house > right now, but eggs still exist) or non-existent as non-existence in some > conceptual realm (for example there does not exist a colour "three" but 3 > still exists) or non-existent as non-sensical (for example a four sided > triangle does not exist as one coherent object, still a four sided triangle > exists as a mental object conisting of two ideas that are not compatible and > thus confusing). A thing can only be what it is supposed to be: A King of France is supposed to be a person, not an idea. A unicorn is supposed to be an animal, not a picure. > 1Z wrote: > > > "God is omnipotent" > > uses the "is" of predication to indicate a hypothetical > > property of God, and could even be used in an argument > > for the non existence of God. > > Then God does not exist as an actor in the world, but God does still exists > as an idea. God is supposed to be a deity not an idea. > 1Z wrote: > > >> >> 1Z wrote: > > >> >> >>"something existing" or simply existence exists, if it is meaningful > >> >> >> to use the word "not", "something that does not exist" or absence > >> >> exist > >> >> >> (existing in the absolute sense and not existing relative to > >> something > >> >> >> else) > >> >> >> and if if it is meaningful to use the word "two", "two of > >> something" > >> >> or > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> number 2 exists. > > >> >> > Nope. To say that two of something exist is not to say two exists. > > >> >> OK; I don't really get that, but let's say this is so. > > >> >> Then you get the functionally > > ... > > read more » -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
