Re: Platonism
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:13:31 GMT
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:49:25 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>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.
Technically only true of the axioms of which it is drawn. A statement
is only logically or mathematically true according to the logical or
mathematical axioms involved.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
