Date: Mar 22, 2013 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/22/2013 1:55 AM, WM wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 20:35, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, WM wrote:
>>> Induction does not need time.
>> WM wrote:
>> Everything that is in the list
>> 1, 2
>> 1, 2, 3
>> 1, 2, 3, ..., n
>> is in the last line. Alas as soon as you try to fix it, it is no
>> longer the last line.
> The former is the position of set theory, the latter is the correct
> way of thinking - useful for those who can think.
If you believe that to be the case,
why will you not explain the details?
You have been asked to either commit
to philosophical positions concerning
time or explain your own. You have
made assertions that mathematics derives
its explanatory force through its
relation to physics. But, physics
offers no meaningful notion of time
that is not fallible through its own
Is it really so difficult to explain
You are the one who claims to have
come here to teach your philosophy.
But when confronted with the demand
to do so, you either ignore the
obligation or turn to insults.