Date: Mar 17, 2013 6:44 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 17 Mrz., 11:19, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 17 Mrz., 08:18, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/16/2013 4:37 PM, WM wrote:
>
> >>> On 16 Mrz., 21:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In potential infinity there is no necessary line except the last one.
> >>>>> We know that with certainty from induction. Every found and fixed line
> >>>>> n cannot be necessary, because the next line contains it.

>
> >>>> AS soon as something is identifies as a natural or a FIS of the set of
> >>>> naturals, it has a successor. It cannot be either a natural nor a FIS of
> >>>> the naturals without a successor. at least by any standard definition of
> >>>> naturals.

>
> >>> As soon as a second becomes presence, it has a successor.
>
> >> And what fantasy is this?
>
> >> The successor to the present has existential form but
> >> has not yet happened.

>
> >> That is not the Kantian aprioriticity of time.
>
> >> That is not the Hegelian becoming of the present.
>
> >> It is the unfounded object of unjustifiable belief.
>
> > It is the well known and established natural way how time passes and
> > how the system of human actions in time goes off.

>
> It is the unfounded object of unjustifiable belief.-


Then you should love it like "the Cartesian product of non-empty sets
is non-empty".

Regards, WM