The Definition of Points
in [Logic]
|
Prev: On Ultrafinitism
Next: Modal logic example
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:41 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> So, start with the straight line: >> >> How? By assumption? As far as I know the only way to produce straight >> lines is through Newton's method of drawing tangents to curves. That >> means we start with curves and derivatives not straight lines.And that >> means we start with curved surfaces and intersections between them. >> > >Take long string and tie to two sticks, tight. Which doesn't produce straight line segments. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:42 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> R exists. >> >> Nice but still an axiomatic assumption of truth. >> > >A declaration as foundation: "Assume A" We can assume lots of things. Doesn't make them true and doesn't make them better or worse than other assumptions. Assumptions are still assumptions. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:44 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Science doesn't prove anything true. >> >> Sure it does. That's the purpose of science. Empiricism and modern >> math don't prove anything true. Mysticism in action. That's why modern >> mathematikers consider themselves neo platonists. They're just divines >> who intuit the truth and what's true and false and go on from there. >Um, same with us Scientifikers...sorry... Not at all. It's the same with empirics. Much better word. Guess and guess again. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:48 On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> It only eliminates false >>> hypotheses. >> >> Well it would certainly do that if it quite knew what was true and >> false to begin with. Strictly speaking contemporary science eliminates >> hypotheses which contradict axiomatic assumptions of truth. But that >> doesn't mean it eliminates hypotheses which are false because it just >> doesn't know what is false in mechanically reduced exhaustive terms. >> > >Again, define "mechanics"? And, this time, don't tell me it means that >everything is derived from not, while you're proving that everything is >derived from not, and complaining about circularity. :) I complain about circularity because circular reductions are not finitely regressible to anything. In other words they're not finite but infinite. Mechanics is finitely regressible to self contradictory alternatives. That's what makes it exhaustive. Choose anything you want as long as it's finitely regressible and demonstrably so. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 29 Mar 2007 17:49
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:37:21 -0500, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> It's modern mathematikers and empirics who ask gods for revelations. I >> concentrate on demonstrating what's true and false in mechanically >> reduced exhaustive terms of finite tautological regression to self >> contradictory alternatives. Whole nuther kettle of fish. >> > >Smells a little familiar... Only because you're used to the smell of something rotten in the state of Denmark. ~v~~ |