Re: AETHER / OR
rotchm_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Maybe in reply to: shevek: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 31 Dec 2004 08:05:35 -0800
Just a few of my comments on this...
>For example, it is true
>that there are infinitely many prime numbers.
> How is this any less true than a statment like
>most of the mass in material is concentrated
>in atomic nuclei?
"prime numbers" in math, is a well defined concept.
"mass" and "most?" and "nuclei" are ill defined. (where does the nuclei
start and end?). We do not have such vaguness in the concept of "prime
numbers"
>Mathematics is also an empirical science. As a
>simple experiment, draw
>one circle on your paper, then draw another.
>Note that there are now two circles. This type of
>experiment is the basis of arithmetic.
>Scientists use all such tools available to them.
This example does not show that math is an empirical science.
In this example, math says that I have drawn two circles on the paper.
Math doest say that there are two circles on the paper.
If I note (observe) two circles, THAT is empirical data- physics. But
math still doesnt say that there are two circles, it says that I
observe two circles.
Here is an example that seeing is not believing
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
- Next message: kenseto: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Previous message: shevek: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Maybe in reply to: shevek: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: AETHER / OR"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|