Re: Objects and Relations

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:52:54 GMT
Message-ID: <abuwh.1136$>

Marshall wrote:

> On Feb 1, 1:06 pm, "Neo" <> 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 - 23:52:54 CET

Original text of this message