On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On 10/7/2015 11:55 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-10-07 20:46 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>: > >> >> >> On 10/7/2015 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> But here Clark contradicts all the textbook on the subject. In fact all >>> what John Clarks says here is that you cannot get a physical object from an >>> arithmetical computations, which is trivial, but does not prove the >>> existence of the physical object, as physical is a relative relational >>> notion in arithmetic. >>> Those type of argument are only the usual knocking on the table. >>> >> >> Which is very good evidence for the existence of a physical object. > > > But it is no evidence at all about the ontological status of such object > > > It's ontological state is "exists". Bruno wrote above, "...does not > prove the existence of the physical object, as physical is a relative > relational notion in arithmetic." My point is that you don't have prove > the existence of physical objects from Peano's axioms - there's much > stronger evidence readily available. > If by stronger evidence you mean your own personal experience, this does not count as proof of the existence of the physical object. All your experience can be used to prove the existence of is that thought. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
