Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 15 Sep, 19:21, David Nyman wrote: > 2009/9/14 Flammarion : > > >> They don't exist physically. They do exist mathematically. It is all > >> what is used. > > > You mean they exist Platonically. For formlalists, > > such "existence" is a mere metaphor and has > > no metaphyscial consequences.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 01:48, "m.a." wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Flammarion" > To: "Everything List" > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:46 AM > Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology > > > On 15 Sep, 15:19, "m.a." wrote: > >> A modest question. What's left of materialism

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion : >> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be >> between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing >> Platonically, other than that different labels are being used. What >> precisely is the latter supposed to entail that the former does n

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > >> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be > >> between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing > >> Platonically, other than that different labels are being used. What > >> precisely is t

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > > > >> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be > > >> between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing > > >> Platonically, other than that different labels are

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > > > >> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be > > > >> between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing >

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > > > > > >> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be > > > > >> between numb

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > > > > > >> I find that I can't real say what the difference i

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > > > > > > >

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman wrote: > > > > >

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

>> > On 15 Sep, 15:19, "m.a." wrote: >> >> A modest question. What's left of materialism (to even argue about) >> >> when >> >> orthodox theoretical physics itself reduces the world to virtual >> >> particles and one-dimensional strings? m.a. >> >> > What makes you think they are not mater

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > >

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote: > the ocean of virtual particles which may give > rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and thought. I see no reason to believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep, 16:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:30, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >

Re: The seven step series

I give the solution. On 15 Sep 2009, at 16:30, Bruno Marchal wrote: > OK? Take your time to compare with the last post, and to understand > what happens. > > Training exercise: prove, using that notation, that 2^N is non > enumerable. Hint: use a slightly different g. 2^N is non enumerable.

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

David Nyman wrote: > 2009/9/16 Flammarion : > > >>> I find that I can't real say what the difference is supposed to be >>> between numbers existing mathematically and numbers existing >>> Platonically, other than that different labels are being used. What >>> precisely is the latter supposed t

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > On 16 Sep, 16:02, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 14:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:49, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > >

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:54, David Nyman > wrote: > > 2009/9/16 Flammarion >: > > > > >> I find that I can't real say what the dif

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

On 16 Sep 2009, at 17:25, Flammarion wrote: > > > > On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote: >> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >> rise to all "real" particles exists somewhere between matter and >> thought. > > I see no reason to believe that > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_part

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

- Original Message - From: "Flammarion" To: "Everything List" Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology > > > > On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote: >> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >> rise to all "real" particles exist

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

m.a. wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Flammarion" > To: "Everything List" > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:25 AM > Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology > > >> >> >> On 16 Sep, 15:51, "m.a." wrote: >>> the ocean of virtual particles which may give >>> ris

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Brent Meeker : > The discussion seems to have gotten stuck on whether it > has been proven that physics can't be fundamental because it can't > include consciousness. Has it? I thought we were discussing whether CTM made any meaningful commitments as a physical theory, not whether phy

Lets get acquainted

Hi to group, Im newbie here. I will ask many questions My webcam-profile is here http://xxx-spaces.com/Anna/anna.html Thank you. Kiss. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

2009/9/16 Flammarion : > The knowabilitry of a claim about what powers numbers > have can only depend on what labels are correctly attached. > Petrol is not flammable just becaue I attached the label > "flammable" to it. Petrol *Is* flammable, and that > makes the label-attachment correct. Yes,

Re: Lets get acquainted

Just to make things clear--this spammer is not the same Anna. :P Anna (of the non-spamming variety) - Original Message - From: "Anna SCat" To: "Everything List" Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:29 PM Subject: Lets get acquainted > > Hi to group, Im newbie here. > I will ask m