Huang wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote: >> [spit a newsgroup] >> >> Huang wrote: >> >> <snip >> >> >> >> > Starting with some preliminaries: >> >> > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont >> > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should >> > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking >> > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. >> >> You don't have any idea what mathematics is. > > > And you have no idea what an axiom is. > > I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities > or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such > counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will > assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is > really absurd. > > If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist > with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very > difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is > quite impossible.
Sigh! Not p. \ > > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol >
No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor what it can't do.
> >> >Futher, I dont >> > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be >> > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. >> >> This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All >> endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet >> and eating your breakfast. >> >> You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor >> shown how to measure it with a ruler. >> >> <snip> >> >> /BAH > > > I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said > he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and > that's what I provided.
For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong. If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment which will falsify your hypothesis.
