fom
Posts:
1,030
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 8:34 PM
|
|
On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, WM wrote:
> On 5 Feb., 17:06, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> This correspondence is as impossible, as I have shown above, as
> finding a set of natural numbers with negative sum.
No.
What you have shown, at best, is that certain
syntactic representations are subject to the
factual problem of semantic indeterminacy.
There are, in general, two acceptable notions
of identity. One can follow the ontological
emphasis of Wittgenstein wherein Leibniz'
principle of the identity of indiscernibles
is denied in favor of "self-identity" or
you have the principle of the identity of
indiscernibles where identity is inextricably
linked to diversity.
Since "identity" is such a loaded word, it
is best to use some other term for what a
mathematician would normally call "the
identity map". Say we use the term
"recitation".
Now, what notion of identity do you ascribe
to material contexts and what notion of
identity do you ascribe to abstract contexts?
How do you assert a notion of identity for
which no involution corresponding to
recitation exists?
|
|
