On Apr 30, 5:02 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 4/29/2013 9:29 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 1:30 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 4/28/2013 9:36 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > >>> the problem with mereology is it uses ALL(S) quantifier > >>> and C (subset) to co-define each other.. > &thats a bit like choosing a marriage bcos I wanted to be member of an elite family with my own brothers Herc?
> >> That is a nice observation Herc. > > >> The only problem is that the foundational > >> investigations for mathematics have a historical > >> context. > yes we know that becos most people also study phonemic developments from ancient times also with development of characters to describe quantities in formulae
> >> What is correct about mereology is that it is > >> consistent with Leibniz.
Born November 14th. Hebrew.
>>> In analyzing the notion > >> of class, Lesniewski
Born March 30, 1886 Poland. then taught Tarski? (simons)
> >> concluded that the existential > >> import of a class and its constituents is > >> simultaneous. In describing the difference, he > >> explained the notion as intensional and contrasted > >> it with the extensional logic of a Fregean or a > >> Russellian approach. > > >> In like fashion, Leibniz contrasted his notion > >> of logic with the extensional Scholastic logic. > >> In this respect Leibniz' logic is also intensional > >> for a different reason. In Leibniz' case, the sense > >> of the syllogistic hierarchy had been characterized > >> by informational complexity. In other words, a genus > >> is part of a species because more information is needed > >> to specify a species than that of the genus with which > >> it is associated. > and any new species is created by the demands of that progenerative genus ie, any or all of its forefathers
> >> It is an unfortunate fact that most of modern > >> foundational mathematics is overly influenced by > >> Russell without questioning Russell's philosophy. > > >> For what this is worth, Cantor rejected the "extension > >> of a concept" formulation used by Frege and Russell. > >> In fact, Cantor's notion of sets involves a "theory > >> of ones" approach which suggests a Leibnizian view > >> of individuation. > > >> I would argue that the problem with the received > >> paradigm is that the sign of equality is improperly > >> characterized. Leibniz' original introduction of > >> the principle of identity of indiscernibles involves > >> geometric intuitions not represented in the logicist > >> framework of Frege and Russell. > and then theres natural human reasoning as well
> >> Your criticism of mereology will be believed by those > >> who have not pursued what the original sources have > >> written. And, it will be respected by me because of > >> its insight. It is, however, a statement that does > >> not question the alternative which is equally nonsensical. > and your or anyone elses respect accounts for?
> >> Analytical philosophy is based on one thing -- avoid epistemology > >> at all costs. When one denies that position, there are > >> not many choices, > on the contrary ! there are so many natural meanings or choices...so many to decide it has an effect of causing some reasoning to 'misadventure'