On 3/18/2013 2:26 PM, WM wrote: > > There is no framework necessary to see that choosing a number is > tantamount to naming it. Only fools can object. But fools will not be > convinced by what they don't believe. This is shown by all the > matheologians who know of these simple ifacts but nevertheless refuse > to understand that their "science" is humbug.
But, I have asked you what you mean when you talk about naming things.
You must be clear about what you mean if I am to understand your beliefs.
I gave you alternatives with regard to the existing theories.
There are Millian names (John Mill).
There are description theories (Frege, Russell, Donellan, Searle).
There are causal frameworks (Kripke).
With which tantamount are you tantamounting?
And, what do you mean by humbug?
The modern paradigm separated "science" from "mathematics" long ago.
I have merely reintroduced the term using qualifiers so that the use of proof in mathematics is given its appropriate scientific consideration.
So do you mean that "empirical science" is humbug?
Do you mean that "demonstrative science" is humbug?
You must learn to be more precise when you make difficult questions sound simple by narrowing the scope to such a small place that your beliefs become truths.