Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Oct 2005 08:42:44 -0700
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2005 11:30:33 -0700, "William of Ockham"
> <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"If you actually think that aspects of the way we perceive
the physical world has any relevance here this is hopeless.
If you realize that it has no relevance but you're bringing
it up anyway this is hopeless. I give up."
I wa trying to understand why you said "In that imaginary world you're
speaking of, where everything is countable, mathematics is simply
nothing whatever like mathematics in our world."
So I gave an example where everything looks the same, all the physics
is the same (in the sense it is expressed in maths), and all the
mathematics appears the same.
Why does this not have any relevance to your remark. You said that in
such a world "mathematics is simply nothing whatever like mathematics
in our world". In what sense is not "nothing whatever like mathematics
in our world"? In that world, what they call "the real numbers" is an
uncountable set.
.
- References:
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
- Previous by thread: Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
- Next by thread: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
