Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: Trends"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:09:52 GMT
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:26:51 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
>>
>> You cannot take "relative number" out of the phrase "relative number of
>> elements". What the phrase means as a whole is the number of elements in
>> the sets relative to each other's number of elements, even if the exact
>> number of elements is not known/knowable (ie that whatever the number of
>> elements in the one set is, the other set has a constant number relative to
>> that).
>
>What does the phrase "relative to each other's number of elements" mean?
What does meaning mean in universal terms, Bob? If you can't regress
the meaning of meaning to universal terms then you can't get at the
meaning of anything in universal terms.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Previous message: fishfry: "Re: Trends"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|