Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 1 Feb 2007 14:31:53 -0800
On Feb 1, 1:06 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Set theory doesn't say anything about bags of potatoes.
> Then why did you bring up bags of potato in the first place?
You still haven't figured out how analogies work. For example, you could just as well have objected that set theory says you can put anything in a set, so how come I can't put an aircraft carrier in a bag of potatoes? Or you could object that math says there's only one number three, but I could have three oranges and three apples and those are different. These objections are malformed; they confuse the physical world and the abstract world, which are vaguely related but not connected in any *concrete* way. I believe that you are continually seeking to understand the nature of the *concrete* relationship between the abstract world and the physical world, and *there isn't one.*
PS. With ketchup. Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 23:31:53 CET