Date: Mar 23, 2013 12:05 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/23/2013 10:15 AM, WM wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 15:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>

>>> On 23 Mrz., 10:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> We both agree that you have not shown that we can
>>>> do something which leaves no lines and does not
>>>> change the union.

>>
>>> No, of course we do not.
>>
>> WH: this does not mean that one can do something
>> WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K
>> WH: and does not change the union of all lines.
>>
>> WM: That is clear

>
> Please complete this sentence: "That is clear because my proof rests
> upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion."
>
> If actual infinity was existing as a meaningful notion, then we could
> remove all finite lines without changin the union in any way.


If the only admissible "lines" are the
"finite lines" then there would certainly
be a change in the union over admissible
lines.

As for the prior statement:

WM has *proven* nothing.

WM would be incapable of applying logic to
a premise he did not believe.

WM has been asked to explain what
he means by "actual infinity" since
his foundational philosophy is allegedly
grounded in some notion of physicalism.

The question of "what is actual?" may be
given context in the links:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Idealism_in_the_philosophy_of_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_realism_and_instrumentalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism#Arguments_for_and_against_scientific_realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism#Critiques_and_responses

Obviously, WM has no intention of explaining
his "philosophy of mathematics" beyond his
"proof by reality" nonsense.