Re: OT (sets and stuff)
Date: 5 Feb 2007 20:25:19 -0800
Message-ID: <1170735919.191249.326570_at_j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 5, 8:09 pm, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ... axioms are not subject to empiricism ...
>
> We could have a model where one of its axiom is "elephants can fly".
> That is fine. Now if this does not match empirical observations then
> we have a problem. Or if other parts of the model contradict that
> "elephants can fly" then we also have a problem. Would you agree?
You're totally off track again. I mean like blind and wandering in a snowstorm. Formal systems don't have elephants in them. In fact no livestock of any kind. The natural world doesn't have any formal constructs in it. No parallel lines. No empty sets.
If it can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then it's not part of set theory. If it cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted, then it is outside the reach of empiricism.
Marshall Received on Tue Feb 06 2007 - 05:25:19 CET