Date: Nov 25, 2012 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8e72f34b-4acb-4e8d-9797-f3b217e4e...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, we know from modern particle physics that the particle, is both
> > > particle, and wave.
> > What we do know is that those things we sometimes regard as being
> > small-and-particle-like things have some behaviors that are wave-like.
> > What those "things"REALLY are, we do not know.
> > And most of the time, don't much care, as long as our descriptions of
> > how we expect them to behave match our observations of how they do
> > behave!
> > --
> Well that's simple, you're not a conscientious mathematician, who
> Heh, you describe exactly the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.
> What those things REALLY are, we care. And, you don't here offer
> anything about it.
Unless knowing what those things "REALLY ARE" is essential to knowing
how to describe their behavior, which at least for quantum theory does
not seem to be the case, most of science is quite satisfied by merely
knowing how to describe their behavior.
> Quit trodding on my coat-tails and get off it.
Didn't now you could even afford a coat, much less one with tails long
enough to tread on.
You must look quite odd wearing one like that.
> And: get a job, get
> off my lawn, and mow it, you hen-pecking, busybody, biddy.