[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Georges Quénot wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Since I don't adopt the premise that everything is >>> mathematical, >> 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. Georges. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
