Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

49 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented, > they have to be discovered. Numbers are such. Yes, but not just discovered, they

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

en P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-09, 13:22:37 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/9/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must happen as they're supposed to. Hi Roger,

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/9/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King In idealism, physics is conceptual, so things must happen as they're supposed to. Hi Roger, And this happens without an expectation of an explanation as to how it is the case? You see, I reject this idea because there is an ent

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 08:36:43 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/8/2012 6:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > You don't need to throw anything. > Parabolas are completely described mathem

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

11/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Brun

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 19:42:25 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 08 Nov 2012, at 01:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip Th

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/7/2012 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip This is not convincing as we can make statical interpr

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 07 Nov 2012, at 17:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of actions. In physics this is trad

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/7/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip This is not convincing as we can make statical interpretation of actions. In physics this is traditionally done by adding one dimension. The action o

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 06 Nov 2012, at 17:05, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a cl

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/6/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claim

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 05 Nov 2012, at 17:31, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claims that such and such know or believe or be

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

llowing content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 13:33:49 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be inven

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no claims about? We can make claim about them, but we don't need to do that for them being true or false. Who are the "we" that you refer to? The universal numbers, or better the Löbi

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Bruno, I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to widen our thinking of how the pote

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 04 Nov 2012, at 17:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theo

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/5/2012 8:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Do you know of any comp outputs that we could examine ? I myself worship data. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen Hi Roger, Ask Bruno. I think that he ha

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/5/2012 8:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Science is based on and produces facts. I don't think you would want to call these facts opinions unless they referred to global warming. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end."

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/5/2012 7:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen, I wouldn't be too hard on Russell, at least as far as logic goes. He had no way of knowing of Godel's proof. And Whitehead had joined him in the principia project. Certainly two of the brightest minds that ever lived. Roger Clough, rclo..

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 11:55:27 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that can

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

- Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 11:37:58 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM,

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

ot;Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 12:51:59 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/4/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's metaphysics "an enchanted

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 03 Nov 2012, at 19:27, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's metaphysics "an enchanted land" and confessed that he hadn't a clue to

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/4/2012 12:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: Horsefeathers ! How is the t

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:09, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Russell is still a pregödelian philosophers. Gödel refutes his general philosophy of math in a precise way. Any idea in what book or paper is Gödel's refutation? I wish to read this! It is com

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity.

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 11:06 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: Horsefeathers ! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 10:35 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: Horsefeathers ! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of that truth? What is the po

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 8:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: Horsefeathers ! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of that truth? What is the possible value of a statement that we can m

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 8:21 PM, meekerdb wrote: Horsefeathers ! How is the truth of an arithmetic statement separable from any claim of that truth? What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no claims about? You are causing confu

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 7:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity. Brent

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 1:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, theref

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 9:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Necessary truths are/were/shall be always true. They can't be invented, they have to be discovered. Numbers are such. Yes, but not just discovered, they must be communicable. Arithmetic or had to exist before man or the Big Bang woujld not have w

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Bertrand Russell was a superb logician but he was not infallible with regard to metaphysics. He called Leibniz's metaphysics "an enchanted land" and confessed that he hadn't a clue to what the meaning of pragmatism is. Hi Roger,

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the > framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is > not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity. > > Stephen, in your philosophy d

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

ime: 2012-11-03, 08:06:59 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is n

Re: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

11/3/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-02, 17:03:42 Subject: Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic On 11/2/2012

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Russell is still a pregödelian philosophers. Gödel refutes his general philosophy of math in a precise way. Any idea in what book or paper is Gödel's refutation? I wish to read this! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Dear Bruno, No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even exist if the framework or theory that defines them does not exist, therefore there is not 'truth' for a non-exitence entity. Brent already debunked this. The truth of a stateme

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 02 Nov 2012, at 22:03, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your ch

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 11/2/2012 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, p

Re: On the ontological status of elementary arithmetic

On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i) Let B be a f