*Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
in some Platonic realm.
*
Brent,
What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.
Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock
Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists
in some Platonic realm.
*
Brent,
What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron +
proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.*
I was trying to mark a distance in real world which is irrational
Le 12-mars-07, à 16:58, John Mikes a écrit :
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god
I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability.
So the
Tangentially:
Brent: 'doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic
realm ...'
MP: For those who occasionally like a clever and entertaining
read unencumbered by deep social comment can I recommend the
adventures of Ms Thursday Next in 'The Eyre Affair' a novel by
Jasper FForde, and in
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
/Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory.
Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock
Holmes exists in some Platonic realm.
/
Brent,
What do you mean by that?
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently.
Perhaps. I am not so sure.
You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron
+ proton because it
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that
it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So
you can regard a game of chess as a mathematical theorem or even a
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then
proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except
that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a
theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen,
it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'
theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.
*
I was
Kim Jones wrote:
Lurking, lurking...
This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions,
aeons ago on my birthday last year.
Thankee, Tom
A little refresher now:
On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote:
Besides the question of how meaning relates to this
12 matches
Mail list logo
