Predicativism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/#Pre
Your before and after is the same as up and down. It's the *unification* into a definite (http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/whatsdef.pdf) construct that's problematic. On 7/28/20 12:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > You are pushing me hard, here, but I think the up/down thang is orthogonal to > the predicativist position. (You invented that word, right?) We > Predicativists need only assert that there is a before and after: i.e., > BEFORE we can say whether a thing is, we have to have said, up front, what it > would be for that thing to be. We can take it back soon as we see where it > leads. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
