Obections to Cantor's Theory (Wikipedia article)
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Derivations
Next: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
From: MoeBlee on 28 Jul 2005 19:12 malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > > >From a post by malbrain(a)yahoo.com: > > > > > > > > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > > > > >From a post by Han.deBru...(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's get physical now. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that you miss that set theory and mathematics are not a > > > > > > narrative of the physical universe and set theory and mathematics do > > > > > > not denote with words that pick out objects and even concepts of the > > > > > > physical universe in the way that everyday language or physical > > > > > > sciences do. For that matter, mathematics can't be tied to a particular > > > > > > theory of the physical universe, since, such theories are about > > > > > > contingent states-of-affairs, > > > > > > > > > > This is a negation of the history of mathematics. Mathematics has a > > > > > "current state-of-affairs" in relation to REALITY also. Ask any > > > > > high-school or junior-college teacher of mathematics. > > > > > > > > I think you're speaking tongue in cheek and about some other pedgogical > > > > matters? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > Just in case you're not, I didn't claim that it is impossible > > > > for mathematics to give a theory for a particular state of affairs in > > > > the physical world or a non-physical one, but rather that mathematics > > > > in general can't be tied to a particular state of affairs in the > > > > physical world. > > > > > > And that negates history. It is by man's nature tied to the CURRENT > > > state of affairs in the physical world. > > > > Perhaps we're using 'tied' in a different sense. Of course, any > > mathematics that has been accomplished is tied with the course of human > > events. Also, an important part of much mathematical motivation is to > > use mathematics for the sciences. I didn't write anything that disputes > > that. > > Tied: product of/conclusion from. Let's try Webster: Senses of 'tied to' include 'bound to', 'answerable to', 'obligated to' 'limited by', etc. Other than that, I see no productivity in going further with quibbles about such informal terms. > 5. (Arch. & Engin.) A beam or rod for holding two parts together; in > railways, one of the transverse timbers which support the track and > keep it in place. Yes, so? > > > > Even granting, for sake of argument, a platonist view, > > > > I don't think this entails that mathematics cannot rationally study > > > > theories that don't conform to a particular platonist universe. I'm > > > > happy to hear arguments to the contrary, though > > > > > > Sorry, but what's the platonist view? karl m > > > > (...) I just mean the > > broad range of views that are proposed or discussed as some form of > > ontological, philosphical, or mathematical realism. > > I checked with wikipedia and found this: "One statement of this > philosophy is the thesis that mathematics is not created but discovered > in some undescribed realm." > > Since I am a materialist: mathematics is created. Okay. > (...) > > > Since 'platonist' does have common, though by no means exact or > > definitive, agreement as to its meaning, I don't know why you are > > asking me about it, > > >From Webster, 1914: > > Pla"to*nist (?), n. One who adheres to the philosophy of Plato; a > follower of Plato. Hammond. That is one sense, but the term, ubiquitous in the literature about mathematics and philosopy, is the sense I mentioned, which harkens to Plato's own philosophy, but, especially with a lower case 'p' (though even with an upper case 'P'), refers, in context, to realism, and, in context, to the notion I mentioned in my previous post. > This doesn't illustrate much agreement, at least in 1913. You have one > name in one realm. Is there better agreement today? Name in what realm? > > unless I've used the term in some non-usual way, > > which it doesn't seem I have. I say this since I am not an expert and > > can't give you a better answer than can be given in many ordinary > > reference works and books and articles on the subject. > > You haven't used the term at all, yet. karl m I used the term 'platonist'. MoeBlee
From: malbrain on 28 Jul 2005 19:26 MoeBlee wrote: > malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > You haven't used the term at all, yet. karl m > > I used the term 'platonist'. And there's a branch of materialism called VULGAR materialism -- refusing to go beyond face value. There's more than meets the eye. karl m
From: malbrain on 28 Jul 2005 19:32 MoeBlee wrote: > malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Tied: product of/conclusion from. Let's try Webster: > > Senses of 'tied to' include 'bound to', 'answerable to', 'obligated to' > 'limited by', etc. Other than that, I see no productivity in going > further with quibbles about such informal terms. The term is hardly informal. > > 5. (Arch. & Engin.) A beam or rod for holding two parts together; in > > railways, one of the transverse timbers which support the track and > > keep it in place. > > Yes, so? It goes beyond the ties as things-in-themselves into CONNECTIVES, FASTENERS and GAUGES. karl m
From: MoeBlee on 28 Jul 2005 19:34 malbr...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > You haven't used the term at all, yet. karl m > > > > I used the term 'platonist'. > > And there's a branch of materialism called VULGAR materialism -- > refusing to go beyond face value. There's more than meets the eye. > karl m I'll have that laminated for my wallet. Thanks for the tip. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 28 Jul 2005 19:37
malbr...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > > malbrain(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > Tied: product of/conclusion from. Let's try Webster: > > > > Senses of 'tied to' include 'bound to', 'answerable to', 'obligated to' > > 'limited by', etc. Other than that, I see no productivity in going > > further with quibbles about such informal terms. > > The term is hardly informal. I used it informally. > > > > 5. (Arch. & Engin.) A beam or rod for holding two parts together; in > > > railways, one of the transverse timbers which support the track and > > > keep it in place. > > > > Yes, so? > > It goes beyond the ties as things-in-themselves into CONNECTIVES, > FASTENERS and GAUGES. karl m You're deep. MoeBlee |