Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 253
Replies: 30   Last Post: Apr 22, 2013 2:44 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,005
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 253
Posted: Apr 19, 2013 3:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<5eac288f-6b17-4751-8441-b39b777847bd@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 19 Apr., 09:34, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6f2faae2-dada-47a3-b172-aff3ad776...@y2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > > So, mathematics has become theological because
> > > > it treats real numbers as individuals although
> > > > they cannot be named

> >
> > > Since numbers do not exists, in mathematics, i.e., in discourse, other
> > > than as names

> >
> > Nonsense!
> > If numbers existed only as names then different names would necessarily
> > represent different numbers,

>
> No. Look, the unicorn does not exist other than as its name. But there
> are different written names and many different pictures describing it.


Wrong, as usual!
The word "unicorn" is not the thing itself but only a way of referring
to or pointing to something else. If the name were the thing named then
the word "unicorn" would have to have a horn, which it does not.
>
> > but a great deal of both arithmetic and
> > algebra is aimed at showing how different names can represent the same
> > number. Equations often do no more than that.

>
> Of course. There are many names for the number one, eins, unity, 1, I.
> But numbers that have no names and no representations do not exist
> such that they could exert any action upon us or that we could exert
> any action upon them.


To say that things than have no names cannot have any effect, as WM is
doing, is to ignore that we are always discovering new, previously
unnamed, things, which, though unnamed, have always existed.

Or does WM believe that each such discovery of something new changes the
underlying reality as well as merely changing our perception of it?
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.