Re: The Difference between a Set and an Element


Nam Nguyen wrote:
Chris Menzel wrote:

May not a set theory with urelemente have a person among its
urelemente?
I think you meant "... an abstraction of a person among its
urelemente?" Mathematics is abstract. Period.

Well, granted, it makes life much easier just to stipulate that things
are thus and so, PERIOD, because that's just what your gut tells you,
but there is nothing whatever about set theory or mathematics generally
that would prevent honest to God flesh and blood persons from serving as
legitimate urelements.


You are right: I just forgot the basic math that the natural numbers
are made of hydrogen atoms and this is why they're so light that they
float around in the mind!

That is just being foolish. If you look at a standard text which is a
bit more careful than some about philosophical questions, Michael
Potters "Set Theory and Its Philosophy", you'll find the book takes as
its fundamental system ZU, with is Zermelo's theory *with* urelemente,
where the urelemente can be as concrete as you like. ZU is a perfectly
good bit of applicable maths -- the mathematics of sets of people,
cutlery or galaxies as the fancy takes you.

.

Relevant Pages