This email dated 9/27 is the last one I have received from the list. I wonder 
if I got delisted, or if things have slowed to a total stop, or what.

> On September 27, 2018 at 7:01 PM John F Sowa <[email protected] 
> mailto:[email protected] > wrote:
> 
> 
>     On 9/27/2018 6:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
> 
>         > > it is not possible to fully respond to your beliefs about the
> >         relationships between Peircian realism, modern mathematics and
> >         science. Our disagreements are sharp and well defined.
> > 
> >     >     My beliefs are based on Peirce and the overwhelming majority
>     of modern mathematicians and scientists.
> 
>     >> The scope of pure mathematics, as Peirce defined it, is infinitely
>     >> larger than whatever was or ever will be discovered, taught, or
>     >> applied by anyone anywhere. That includes all intelligent aliens
>     >> in any galaxy anywhere in the universe.
>     >>
> 
>         > > Wow! Wow! Wow!
> > 
> >     >     That is pure Peirce and consistent with the mainstream of modern 
> > math.
>     Mathematicians are frequently inspired by what empirical scientists
>     discover, but they are not constrained in any way by observations.
> 
>     >> For more, Peirce's CP has 49 instances of "pure mathematics".
>     >> In CP 1.636, for example, he says that the goal of pure mathematics
>     >> is to discover pure possibilities: "that real potential world" of
>     >> which actual existence is "nothing but an arbitrary locus”:
> 
>         > > Really? ... Of course, if one ignores the methods mother nature 
> uses
> >         to count objects, you can ignore my objectification and objection.
> > 
> >     >     Mother nature does not count anything. People invent 
> > representations,
>     which they apply, as appropriate, to what they observe in nature.
> 
>     >> The word 'variable', as used in mathematics, is a metalevel term
>     >> about the notation. It just means that letters like x, y, z may
>     >> be used to refer to different things on different occasions. If
>     >> you use x to refer to something, that does not imply that the
>     >> thing you designate by x would vary.
>     >
> 
>         > > Many mathematical texts disagree with this view
> > 
> >     >     Please quote any text that seems to be inconsistent with what I 
> > said.
>     And I'd be happy to show how that statement correctly describes
>     what is meant.
> 
>     John
> 
>     -----------------------------
>     PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] 
> mailto:[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to 
> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] mailto:[email protected] with the line 
> "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to