Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jul 8, 2013 9:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols
Posted: Jul 6, 2013 11:03 AM

On 7/6/2013 9:50 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
> news:urednfGmS_X9uUXMnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> On 7/6/2013 6:20 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
>>> news:QrGdnSwFF7s95krMnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>

>>>> Still, there are few choices:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
>>>>
>>>> Take your pick: circularity, infinite regress, or meaningless syntax.

>>>
>>> Oh, come on, those are the choices for the mindless rationalist only.

>>
>> Perhaps.
>>
>> Suppose one merely imposes a constraint upon
>> "knowledge" in so far as it be "objective".

>
> Merely?

Sure. Why not? That had been the criterion
by which Kant attempted to reconcile Humean
skepticism.

That happens to be the historical reference
that most closely agrees with apoorv's sense
of the matters relating the universal quantifier
to infinity. He did not understand the reference
when I posted it. But that is not a problem.

>
>> There are an indeterminate number of choices
>> for subjective knowledge. Its limits lie
>> with the imagination of the individual.

>
> There are as many sensibilities as there are individuals, but one and
> only one rationality: only the sceptics and the liars deny that.
>

Is it representable? There are now many logics.
Either the unique rationale is representable or
it is not (like the "realist" bivalence?). If
it is representable, then it has already been
represented or it has yet to be represented. If
it has been represented, by what criteria does
one recognize its canonical form? If it has not
been represented, how can we know? Will we be
able to recognize it when it is represented?

Disregarding all of that, what is your sense of
the one rationality?

>> But, what of knowledge in the objective
>> sense?

>
> I so I believe, that ultimate knowledge is not subjective, although it
> is not "objective" in the usual sense either: the comprehension of
> cosmos is more of a spiritual adventure, then, among other things, a
> rational endeavour.
>

I can agree with that.

Date Subject Author
7/5/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/6/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
7/7/13 Peter Percival
7/7/13 fom
7/8/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
7/8/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/6/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/6/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/8/13 apoorv
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom