Lennart Nilsson wrote:
Cooper says that a formalist, with only formal constraints on his logic
(such as consistensy) is at the mercy of the formalism itself.
Meaning what ? That the formalism might not be giving answers
that are really right ? How would we tell ? using some
other logic ? Or
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events in the
real world,
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
But in this case we are using mathematics to describe actual events
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what
is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
But in this case we are using
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Lennart Nilsson wrote:
We use mathematics as a meta-language, just like you kan describe what
is
said in latin by using italian. That does not make italian
logically/evolutionary prior to latin of course.
But in this case we
5 matches
Mail list logo