Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:54:40 GMT

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:11:53 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>> You, on the other hand, Bob, take all this into consideration and
>> still get the definition of the circle wrong. Go figure.
>
>Let P be a point on the plane. Let R be a line segment. A circle with
>center P and radius equal in length to R is the set of points on the
>plane distance R from P. Why do you find this difficult?

And let Bob be a point. The set of points worth making equidistant
from Bob still defines a sphere and not a circle. The reason you find
this so difficult is that you don't understand that the definition you
provide has to be qualified dimensionally or it the same definition
applies equally to points, lines, circles, and spheres. So what's your
definition for spatial dimensionality?

In point of fact you can talk about any particular dimensionality. So
your definition for spatial dimensionality is just another axiom on
the road to Xanadu, Bob. That's what I find so difficult. You complain
that space has no independent existence and that I am an anachronism
because I recognize the independence of spatial dimensionality. Now it
seems you're hoist with your own petard. Either *** or get off the
pot.

Regards - Lester