On 3/22/2013 1:55 AM, WM wrote: > On 21 Mrz., 20:35, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, WM wrote: >> >> >> >>> Induction does not need time. >> >> In >> >> news://news.giganews.com:119/f23c81fd-2463-4d3f-8df4-04799a493...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com >> >> WM wrote: >> >> ================ >> Everything that is in the list >> 1 >> 1, 2 >> 1, 2, 3 >> ... >> 1, 2, 3, ..., n >> is in the last line. Alas as soon as you try to fix it, it is no >> longer the last line. > > The former is the position of set theory, the latter is the correct > way of thinking - useful for those who can think.
If you believe that to be the case, why will you not explain the details?
You have been asked to either commit to philosophical positions concerning time or explain your own. You have made assertions that mathematics derives its explanatory force through its relation to physics. But, physics offers no meaningful notion of time that is not fallible through its own mathematics.
Is it really so difficult to explain yourself?
You are the one who claims to have come here to teach your philosophy. But when confronted with the demand to do so, you either ignore the obligation or turn to insults.