[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is
>> I would like to clarify just that point. I understood that
>> you do not adopt it (and whatever your reasons I have to
>> respect the fact). By the way I am not sure I really :-)
>> adopt it either.
>> But can you make a difference between adopting it and
>> being able to consider that it might make sense (whether
>> it is true or not) and conduct (or follow) reflections
>> in a context in which it would be conjectured as true?
> I don't think Mathematical Monism makes sense
OK. Just consider that it does make sense to some people.
> (to be precise it
> is either incoherent, in asserting that only some mathematical
> objects exist, or inconsistent with observation in asserting that
> they all do)..
I do not see how it can be inconsistent with observation.
>>> [...] Maps are isomorphic to
>>> territories, but are not territories.
>> Well. Territories *are* maps. Just a very specific type
>> of map but maps anyway.
> err...no they are not. You can't grow potatoes in a map of a farm.
>> Identity is just an isomorphism
>> among possibly many others.
> All identity relations are isomorphisms as well.
> Not all isomporhisms are identity relations.
>> The territory can be the map
>> and indeed vice versa.
> You can't fold up the farm and put it in your pocket.
You're right. I can't.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at