andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> --- ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Devine, James wrote:
>>
>>>according to many philosophers of math (according
>>to JKS), math exists outside of us whether we use it or not.
>>
>>well, what does 'exist' mean? physical existence?
>
> Are you getting all Clinton on us, "depends on what
> the meaning of 'is' is"? -- Why the prejudice that
> something must be a "physical" object to exist?
>
;-) no prejudice! you have to stop interpreting my questions as a
statement of my beliefs (in truth, i am quite confused about the
consistency or justification of any position other than solipsism). my
question was only to find out what JD meant by "exists", before i
attempt any sort of answer. for instance, one answer could be: let us
define the number three as the property of all "things" grouped in
three. insofar as the three rocks can be said to exist, it can be
claimed, so does the number three. but he could cut me off that sort of
response by saying that by 'exist', he meant only things he can kick!
then i may have come forth with an argument quite similar to yours about
metaphysical biases. or maybe something else...
> I don't see what is so problematic about the idea of
> abstract entities.
abstract entities are the easier ones for me! its "concrete" entities
that are more difficult to explain/justify.
> Why does everything have to be physical?
not true... i love you emotionally man! not because you are a sexy hunk! ;-)
--ravi
