Re: Proof there exists a soul


Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> manutter51@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> > The *exact* square root of two is an infinite series of nonrepeating
> > decimal digits. Unless your mind is a *lot* better than mine is, it's
> > not capable of containing an infinite series of decimal digits,
> > therefore the exact value of the square root of two cannot exist in it.
> > This leaves you with two logical alternatives: either there is no such
> > thing as the exact square root of two, since there is no infinite mind
> > within which such a number could exist--in which case what are our
> > approximate values for the square root of two approximations of?--or
> > else there must be some infinite mind within which the exact value of
> > the square root of two can exist. The latter case implies come kind of
> > deity, which would tend to argue against the proposition that only
> > things composed of matter can be real.
>
> The existence of the square root of two follow from the local
> compactness of the real number space. It is the limit of a sequence of
> approximations, each of which could inhabit our thoughts.
>
> If you don't like compact number systems then settle for rational
> approximations with an upper bound on the precision.
>


> In any case one can prove as a theorem in a finite number of steps that
> the square root of two exists. I like using the Hilbert Nullstellenszatz
> myself. It produces a nice proof. But I do not confuse abstract objects
> and relations with real solid things that you can eat or that can kill you.

When you prove, in a finite number of steps, that the square root of
two *exists*, are you proving the existence of certain specific
neurological events in other human brains, are you making predictions
about how those events would happen in response to a human being
reading your proof, or are you proving something about a non-material,
but objective thing.

>
>
> >
> > The point I think you are missing is that what exists in people's
> > brains are the *representations* and *concepts* of the numbers, not the
> > numbers themselves.
>
> You presume the existence of these numbers for Real. O.K., produce
> empirical evidence that they exist. I do not hold my breath until you
> do, as I would most likely turn purple and die.
>
> Bob Kolker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof there exists a soul
    ... The *exact* square root of two is an infinite series of nonrepeating ... Unless your mind is a *lot* better than mine is, ... therefore the exact value of the square root of two cannot exist in it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Central Limit Theorem?
    ... I know you know what "infinite" means. ... >>>No, the distribution result CANNOT be exact, when some of the ... > That's the difference, Herman. ... > Show us how you would generate that discrete distribution EXACTLY, ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... there is no exact size of the set. ... >>> not matter whether N is finite or infinite, ... >> resulting set suddenly only has half the number of members. ... Thus, for the set of finite naturals, which does have a smallest, to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Central Limit Theorem?
    ... >>Herman Rubin wrote: ... I know you know what "infinite" means. ... computer program can produce an EXACT number which required INFINITELY ... >>No, the distribution result CANNOT be exact, when some of the ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: mathematical question Re: And so it turns out
    ... You are saying that 0 added to itself an infinite number of times = 0.. ... Smoothly transitioning from that to saying infinity times zero is also ... The square root of two is not rational. ...
    (sci.lang)