please spare me the arithmetic class.
I scribbled an example which may be wrong. So noted and I am ashamed.
I was referring to the concept of (our) *'axioms'* - products of human
thinking to make our edifice of the cognitive inventory we carry *- VALID*.
I opened the possibility that a quite different view may exist with maybe
different 'axioms' - without going into theorizing about such.
And I won't.
I still hold that EVERYTHING is not restricted to our human ways - not in
logic, not in our so called possibilities, not in anything.
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > On 15 Aug, 20:12, "John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> As for 1Z's axioms:
> >> In my vocabulary axioms are artifacts invented to make our theories
> >> workable. If 1 + 1 is NOT 2,
> > How would that turn out the case?
> >> you can say goodby to math.
> We define arithmetic so 1+1=2, but that's a particular model for dealing
> distinguishable, discrete things. It doesn't apply to everything, e.g. (1
> member of the U.S. 400m relay team) + (1 member of the U.S. 100m sprint
> team) =
> (1 member of the U.S. Olympic team). And given quantum entanglement and
> indistinquishability of particles it may only apply *approximately* to
> like apples and oranges. So if 1+1=/=2 it just means you tried to apply a
> where it doesn't work.
> Brent Meeker
> >> Furthermore I dislike the use of the word 'infinite' - in TEXTS I
> >> use: 'unlimited'.
> > >
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at