Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:00:59 -0500

The Sophist said:
> Albert wrote:
> > The Sophist wrote:
> >
> >> Albert wrote:
> >>
> >>> I mean that, other than giving pleasure as a form of mental
> >>> masturbation for mathematicians, does it have any utility to
> >>> Science? There are no infinities in reality, only very large numbers
> >>> of things.
> >>
> >> And you know this how? I confess to being sympathetic to the view
> >> that reality consists of gunk, to use the technical term that has
> >> become standard among metaphysicians. Certainly I know of no argument
> >> that the world is not gunky.
> >
> > Are there large numbers of gobs of gunk? Or only one great big gob?
> > Does gunk have a shape? Are there appendages of gunk that can be
> > counted? Tell me more of the Theory of Gunk.
>
> Gunk does not have smallest parts. Any amount of gunk can always be
> divided into smaller amounts of gunk. So if the universe is all gunk,
> then far from there being no infinities in the universe, it turns out
> that any given thing you would care to name contains infinitely many
> parts, as it can be divided endlessly.
>
>
>
I like the gunk theory - very cute. Personally I would imagine the
number of elementary particles is finite, and our spacetime is finite,
but unlike some others here, I have no problem imagining that there are
an infinity of points in finite space and an infinite of moments in
finite time. Even if these aren't tangible objects, they are
identifiable places in the universe. Still, gunk has a good sound to
it..... 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages
Quantcast