Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?

From: Curt Welch (curt_at_kcwc.com)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: 14 Nov 2004 20:29:24 GMT

raf@tiki-lounge.com (Ross A. Finlayson) wrote:

> Curt, what's the point, man?

I've addressed that to some extend in a previous post now. My interst
comes from my exploring the ideas of AI. I'm not trying to "fix" math, I'm
trying to understand what has happened.

My interest is in understanding the relationship between what we can do
with language, and what exists in the physical world. My interest is to
try and understand if there is a clear point where we violate some
important principle and end up describing something with language, that can
never exist in our universe.

I can make up a story about a blue book on my desk. There is no blue book
on my desk, so I've just used language to describe something that does not
exist. However, just because it does not happen to exist does not mean it
is impossible for it to exist. I can describe a blue book on my desk which
is talking to me. That's something we see in the cartoons all the time.
And as far as we all know, such a thing does not exist in real life
anywhere in the universe. But it could exist for all we know.

But, is there some way to use language where we cross over from
very-unlikely, to flat out impossible? I think there might be. I'm trying
to understand if that point exists and how to describe it.

I'm trying to understand if some fields of math might have wondered off
into the "flat out impossible" land. And if they have, what it means for
those fields of reason and how they relate to the fields of reason which
have not left the land of the possible.

> Anyways, Curt, some people are very attached to their notions ...

That's key. People use language to justify what they believe. They seldom
if ever, really understand why they believe what they believe, yet, if they
can construct elaborate language to justify it, it makes them feel good, so
they do it. We all work this way. And that's part of the danger. The
language we use to justify everything exists simply because it makes us
feel good. Separating truth, from "good feelings" is much harder to do
than most people understand because in the end, none of cares as much about
truth as we do about feeling good. (but that's another argument for another
group).

You used a lot of language about math in your post which I do not
understand. I have a lot of work to do before I could discuss those issues
with you. But I did find your post interesting. 

-- 
Curt Welch                                            http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com                                        http://NewsReader.Com/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: profanity on comp.lang.python (was Re: Pyro stability)
    ... If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum, ... 100% of people have seen trash on the street, ... "In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: FAQ 1.12--auto keyword
    ... which I imagine is what would justify yet ... but re-using "static" for purposes only tangentially related to ... if they want to invent a new language, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: profanity on comp.lang.python (was Re: Pyro stability)
    ... If this is supposed to justify using bad language in a public forum, ... is no harm in their swearing to each other. ... I too know your wrong Aahz. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Help from fellow Fortran Users
    ... that includes Fortran or not. ... You don't really have to justify ... > is that Fortran is truly a high-level language. ... My viewpoint is more that C is the "peculiar" ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... with language, and what exists in the physical world. ... I can make up a story about a blue book on my desk. ... People use language to justify what they believe. ...
    (sci.math)