On 27 Mai, 21:26, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > In article > <5f791699-355d-41db-80ec-208739da8...@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
Unless these things are names only. > > > > > 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.
Replace "do not exist" by "cannot exist" and you see that such numbers cannot be used for enumerating anything, hence are not numbers. > > > > > "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.
In philosophical texts you can find frequently words with different meanings that are distinguished by numbers as I did. To be(1) or to be (2) or to be(14) that is the question. But you seem not to be(0) aware of such scholarly texts.
