In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have seen MatheRealism being discussed in other threads. As I don't > want to get involved in too many threads, I answer here: > > -possums.net> wrote: > > On 2009-05-27, Brian Chandler <imaginator...@despammed.com> wrote: > > > > > The "is" of "there is" is not the exists() predicate, so (I suppose!) > > > if you could formalise this it would not be a contradiction "as such". > > That is correct! > > > > As I recall, he actually used the word "exist" for both aspects: both > > that the number exists and that it cannot exist. He may well have > > intended different meanings for each use without clarification or > > distinction. > > Due to the lack of tools for representing numbers with large > information contents (larger than 2^80 bits, or 2^365 bits, or 2^X > bits, where X is a number that may depend on the progress of physics > but in any case is finite) we must accept that numbers with larger > information contents (that canot be reduced) do not exist.
WM may have to accept if, but o one else need do so. WM conflates our ability to name a number with its existence. There is nothing inconsistent or illogical in the existence of things for which we do not have names. > > That means, there exist numbers (namely according to current > mathematics, which calls itself realism but is simply a form of > idealism) that do not exist according to fact.
It only means that there are numbers for which specific forms of names do not exist, but that is only a fault in those specific naming mechanisms. > > "to exist" is used here in two different meanings such that "there > exist(1) numbers that do not exist(2)" is not a self-contradiction.
It is a contradiction in English. It probably is a contradiction in the German of scholars. But WM would not know about that.