Re: Platonism
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 12/05/04
- Next message: Lynn Kurtz: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- Previous message: Tim Brauch: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- In reply to: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:49:25 GMT
patty wrote:
>
> I don't know if its totally accurate to say that mathematics is not
> empirical. Once you make a construction, you subject it to tests. If
> the tests fail, you reject the construction. What is your criteria for
> being empirical ?
Measurement and observation vs formal deduction. Essentially all
mathematical proofs are tautologies. The same is not true for
empirically true statements.
It is empirically true that the washington monument is 555 +- 1 foot
high. No logical contradiction would be entialed if it were only 500
feet high. An empirically true statement just so happens to be true. A
logically true statement is necessarily true.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Lynn Kurtz: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- Previous message: Tim Brauch: "Re: Amazing story - Roulette Scanning"
- In reply to: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: patty: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
