Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Do waves move faster in a liquid with a higher density?
Next: ...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
From: Nam Nguyen on 12 Jan 2010 02:34 dorayme wrote: > In article <6pV2n.3782$ZB2.1447(a)newsfe13.iad>, > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> dorayme wrote: >>> In article <2sU2n.18279$Sh7.5672(a)newsfe25.iad>, >>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Marshall wrote: >>>>> It has been proposed on this thread that math is just a game >>>>> with no significance or utility, except by coincidence (this is >>>>> bullshit.) >>>> Mathematics is a game of the mind. Whether or not that has any utility >>>> or significance, or that is by coincidence, or that is "bullshit" doesn't >>>> matter, to the fact that it's just a game. >>> It can be treated as a game with strict rules. >> If mathematical truths are absolute, existing independently outside >> human mind then mathematics wouldn't be a game. But that's not the case. >> Ask yourself which particular truth that can't be proven false in a >> different context, and you would see that it's just a game of choosing >> reasoning frameworks, manipulating symbols, interpreting models, etc... > > Well, I don't know how you would work it so that one could see that > there are no primes between 1 and 21 and such things without changing > the *meanings* of the words used. Keep the "meanings"; just change the frameworks, axioms, models, or a combination of. > >>> That does not mean it is >>> just a game nor that it is a coincidence that mathematics is useful to >>> us. >> It's a misconception that games in general have to be useless to human beings. > > Who is falling for that misconception. Neither of us! But the question > that is relevant is what sort of use. Mere use because it reduces stress > levels is not much relevant! The point is mathematics is still just a game, even though it might be a useful one by no coincidence.
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 03:02 On Jan 12, 12:20 pm, Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > An axiom says something, About what? > the natural numbers simply exist. As what? >.............. Now, either that is an arbitrary creation of man or > > it has some undeniable objective truth. > > These are not the only possibilities. So where's the list? MG
From: Errol on 12 Jan 2010 03:20 On Jan 12, 8:58 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 11, 11:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I didn't see a yes or no anywhere in your answer, > > Thats encouraging, all you need do now is to expand non-contradictory > identification into your own ideas, e.g. lines that are parallel do > not converge, intersect and or diverge no matter how far their > journey. > > MG Typical of you, you cowardly name caller. You are to scared to commit in case you pick the wrong choice. You would rather blather on endlessly, ducking and diving to avoid the issue because Ayn didn't have a ready opinion on the matter you can jot down, without having to do any thinking yourself.
From: Michael Gordge on 12 Jan 2010 04:27 On Jan 12, 6:23 pm, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Forget parrallel lines. The postulate is about two lines that are NOT > parrallel. > They can either be converging or diverging. So which is it? MG
From: Zinnic on 12 Jan 2010 06:57
On Jan 12, 3:27 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jan 12, 6:23 pm, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Forget parrallel lines. The postulate is about two lines that are NOT > > parrallel. > > They can either be converging or diverging. > > So which is it? > > MG Who is the 1000 th ? |