Date: Mar 21, 2013 9:26 AM
Author: Scott Berg
Subject: Re: For the readers of WM: Resources on empirical time to consider as a foundation for mathematics


"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
news:1ZudnajAj7TF09fMnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 3/20/2013 4:36 PM, AMeiwes wrote:
>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
>> news:wIydnYEnbJNc-dTMnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>>>
>>> In the post,
>>>
>>> news://news.giganews.com:119/ce55c74c-8c92-44d2-8e96-86e487e1549e@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> WM has made the remarks,
>>>
>>> "This is deplorable because mathematic
>>> like no other part of "arts"depends on
>>> physics."

>>
>> wrong => math is not art. physics depends on math.
>>

>
> In fairness, the reference to "art" here involves the
> distinction between the convocation of Masters of Arts
> degrees and Masters of Science degrees in the system
> of higher education. That, however, is irrelevant to
> what is meant in relation to the relative logical
> priority between mathematics and physics.
>


..... so what does "relevant relative logical priority" actually mean?

>>
>>> "Reality is the ultimate arbiter since
>>> mathematics has been abstracted from
>>> reality."

>>
>> circular thinking since one is thinking in circles.
>>

>
> I, personally, have no problem with circularity.
> At issue, however, is the correctness of its application,
> and "thinking in circles" is disqualified.
>


if disqualification leads to disagreement, I agree