LudovicoVan
Posts:
3,447
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08


Re: Matheology § 300
Posted:
Jul 12, 2013 5:33 AM


"fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message news:wOSdndQgtE420LMnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 7/11/2013 12:39 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message >> news:tsydnVqQxM5500bMnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> On 7/8/2013 4:45 PM, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: >>>> On Monday, 8 July 2013 23:24:10 UTC+2, FredJeffries wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 8, 2013 10:39:01 AM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de >>>>> wrote: > > Hahaha. And if enumerated, you think you can be sure to >>>>> get even the last one out??? >>>> >>>>> Explain it slowly: There...is...no...last...one >>>> >>>> If "all" could leave the urn, one must have left without another >>>> remaining there. Or go many together? >>>> >>>> Explain it slowly: In scientific applications of "all" there is >>>> always and "end signal", a last one. >>> >>> Except when WM is asked for that number which is the last number. >> >> WM would not agree there is a last one, mind the confusion. Indeed, I >> think he is quite correct here: he is saying "to have *all*" we need an >> "endsignal", which looks perfectly sensible, IMO. > > Aristotle actually considers this. > > For Aristotle, the generality of a universal statement > takes priority over an exhaustive specification of a > domain. > > He distinguishes between "prior by nature" and "prior > to us". Associated with "prior to us" is our own > perception. Thus it corresponds with certain philosophical > views we associate with empiricism. > > Aristotle's preference with respect to "prior by nature" > has to do with the interpretation of a universal quantifier > in relation to arbitrary choice. This arbitrariness > follows from the intention of what is stated in a > deduction. The truth of a consequence ought not to > be dependent on the inductive specification of a domain. > Aristotle views this as being prior in two different > ways, and, therefore, circular. > > That is just his opinion, of course.
And WM's: naturalists, ultrafinitists. Of course, Aristotle is justified, WM isn't...
Julio

