Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Missing FAQ"
- Previous message: francoisbelfort_at_yahoo.fr: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:42:52 -0500
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Yes, and in my opinion, mathematical truths are facts which makes
> reality happen.
Mathematical truths are artificial constructs. They do not exist
independent of intelligent sentient beings who posit them.
I get the impression that you believe all of reality can be -deduced-
from some a priori princple. It can't. We need contingent facts to build
theories.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Uncle Al: "Re: Missing FAQ"
- Previous message: francoisbelfort_at_yahoo.fr: "Re: Attraction vs repulsion - why does it depend on spin?"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
