Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]


george wrote:
georgie wrote:
The context of my statement was a response to a discussion about
the how meaningful things are.

Well, the falsfiability criterion was more from science than math.
As has already been pointed out, existentials are hard to falsify
and universals hard to verify. As should be obvious, as a general
rule, if "x" is meaningful then "not x" is equally meaningful, since
the meaning of "not" is well-known. But one of them will be
falsifiable
and the other will not, in a logical context, so that guideline doesn't
work as well here.

The WHOLE point about THIS (meaningful-oriented)
context is that NO ONE NEED GIVE A *** about what
"falsifiability" anything might have. All you HAVE to care about
is what conveys a useful idea.

.