Marshall wrote:
> 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.*
>
>>I much prefer fries charred in lard :)
>
> I really, really like french fries. I wish I didn't.
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. With ketchup.
Just don't get addicted to poutine. That stuff is a coronary in a bowl.
Received on Thu Feb 01 2007 - 16:52:54 CST
