Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:25:32 -0500
Albert said:
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> > Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> >
> >> robert j. kolker said:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>>
> >>> Search the physical world over and you will not find a single
> >>> integer. They exist only inside of brains as abstract concepts.
> >>> External to conscious minds there are no mathematical objects in the
> >>> world, whatsover.
> >>>
> >>> Bob Kolker
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am sure you would say that if there are no integers in the world,
> >> there are certainly no prime numbers. However, take note that several
> >> species rely on prime numbers of years for their reproductive cycles,
> >> because their strategy is to flood the environment with tasty
> >> offspring when their predators can't anticipate it, ensuring that some
> >> of the many offspring will survive simply because they can't all be
> >> eaten. These include the salmon (5 & 7 year), locusts and cicadas
> >> (5,7,11,13 and 17 years), and bamboo (11 to 151 years). These seem
> >> like very concrete examples of prime numbers that existed long before
> >> we discovered (not invented) them. Can you disagree with that?
> >
> >
> > This is so confused about the nature and purposes of a mathematical
> > model and its relation to the real world that it's not even wrong. Start
> > over.
>
> Apparently your reading list for the well-read, does not include
> Gregory Bateson.
>
>
Is that for me or Bob?
-- Smiles, Tony
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|