On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Still don't get relation between comp and resolution of finite, infinite > controversy; especially given "..." attribute today of supposedly finite > comp. > > And I'm going to stay quite obtuse (at least [image: \aleph_0]-obtuse, if > I have to quantify) on this so bring it on, either way. > > A friend thankfully pointed out that I am perhaps mixing up the objects of the ontology and their implied meta level; which would resolve my obtuosity indeed. On the meta level, as I can gather, the ontology is infinite, say the natural numbers, but the ontology is not a member of the ontology! (There's my "oops, ok yes, shit!") N itself is not a natural number, similar to set theory where the collection of all sets is not a set. So finitism: all existing "Urstuff/Urmachines/Urentities or Urthing-stuffjunks" are finite, the whole of course infinite, but that itself not being such a thing by reasoning above. Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper limit, and I heard they issue fines and tickets for anybody who states a bigger number. I learn "immaterial size and the thingstuffentity itself" does matter! Thankfully I have friends that can kick me over the head like this and rid me of superfluous robustobtusity. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
