Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:21:53 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:52:47 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>
>>>
>> If the math is real, it's obviously about the real world.
>
>Mathematics is abstract, so it is not real in the physical sense.
Neither is this conversation real in the physical sense. Neither is
this conversation mathematical. Neither is mathematics logic. You see,
when we examine things logically, we begin to get all sorts of things
that aren't mathematics despite the pretensions of mathematikers.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
