Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: "david petry" <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 14:56:33 -0700
William of Ockham wrote:
david petry wrote:
Meaningfulness requires observability.
Why is that? Can we not speculate whether life exists in the parts of
space which in fact we could never reach (such as those moving away
from us faster than the speed of light). Can we not speculate whether
there is life after death?
What I have been suggesting is that mathematics can be viewed as a
science which makes falsifiable predictions. You are certainly free to
speculate about the existence of things lying beyond the world we
observe, but, importantly, you really have no right to demand that I or
anyone else accept your insights about such things. In contrast, I
believe that I do have the right to demand that you and society not
exclude me on the basis of my skepticism about your speculations about
a world beyond what we can observe.
Indeed, can't we ask the question whether there is a set containing
every subset of N? If I understand the quantifier "every subset of N",
why can't I understand the rest?
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Prev by Date: Two questions on First order Model Theory
- Next by Date: Re: Vague or Ambiguous?
- Previous by thread: Two questions on First order Model Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
