Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: And who are these "more philosophical mathematicians?" Certainly not Kant as he's not listed that way by Wikipedia. Do you have any quotes?

PhilX

Whilst very useful Wiki is by far not the font of all wisdom.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mathematics/

Goggle Intuitionism, Formalism, Constructivism, et al and Philosophy of Mathematics and try to learn something philosophical about the subject you love.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Yes I do.

PhilX

Then it has been a very remiss coures in not teaching or touching upon the philosophy or history of your subject.

Arising said:

"But Philosophy of Maths isn't when it asserts ontology as it's essentially epistemology and really metaphysics."

Epistemology and metaphysics are separate categories on this forum.

PhilX

Arising said:

"And you're a classic example of an interweeble posting upon a forum the subject of which you have no clue about." Oooh you make me tingle when you call me names, you silly bird you.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:47 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Yes I do.

PhilX

Then it has been a very remiss coures in not teaching or touching upon the philosophy or history of your subject.

You're not even fit to judge yourself and you think you can judge others?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:47 am Arising said:

"But Philosophy of Maths isn't when it asserts ontology as it's essentially epistemology and really metaphysics."

Epistemology and metaphysics are separate categories on this forum.

PhilX

So what as these are just general categories developed from the history of Philosophy but the reality is that they often intertwine which is not surprising as to be a Philosophy it should have a metaphysic, an epistemology, an ethics, a politics and often nowadays a phil of mind which should all logically hang together.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:49 am Arising said:

"And you're a classic example of an interweeble posting upon a forum the subject of which you have no clue about." Oooh you make me tingle when you call me names, you silly bird you.

PhilX

Who cast the first stone?

Whenever things get too hard for you to think about philosophically you retreat to this position. You are unsuited to a philosophy forum and should stick to maths forums.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: You're not even fit to judge yourself and you think you can judge others?

PhilX

Given you appear to have no idea about the philosophy or history of your subject I think the judgement based upon the evidence you provide.

Still waiting for you to explain how you know dimensionless points exist?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Simple I read their works online and from books. Just because you flap your lips doesn't make you an authority.


PhilX

Post up these links that claim dimensional points actually exist and how they have proved this.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:52 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:47 am Arising said:

"But Philosophy of Maths isn't when it asserts ontology as it's essentially epistemology and really metaphysics."

Epistemology and metaphysics are separate categories on this forum.

PhilX

So what as these are just general categories developed from the history of Philosophy but the reality is that they often intertwine which is not surprising as to be a Philosophy it should have a metaphysic, an epistemology, an ethics, a politics and often nowadays a phil of mind which should all logically hang together.

Except that philosophy of math is set up different from these two categories.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:54 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:49 am Arising said:

"And you're a classic example of an interweeble posting upon a forum the subject of which you have no clue about." Oooh you make me tingle when you call me names, you silly bird you.

PhilX

Who cast the first stone?

Whenever things get too hard for you to think about philosophically you retreat to this position. You are unsuited to a philosophy forum and should stick to maths forums.

What category are we in now fool? And it's not your place to judge who's suitable for the overall forum, let alone which specific forum he or she should be in.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:00 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Simple I read their works online and from books. Just because you flap your lips doesn't make you an authority.


PhilX

Post up these links that claim dimensional points actually exist and how they have proved this.

Here's a link that says a dimensionless point can be defined:

https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Point ... and_planes

As long as it can be defined and it's consistent, it exists.

This is an argument you can't win. Now you're going to say you can't see it. That's your problem. Now put up a link 5hat says dimensionless points can't exist.

PhilX

Oh btw, your word, interweeble, isn't a real word as it's only listed as an urban slang, not on Oxford Dictionary nor M-W.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:06 pm Oh btw, your word, interweeble, isn't a real word as it's only listed as an urban slang, not on Oxford Dictionary nor M-W.

PhilX

Damn! And there's me thinking I made it up.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Here's a link that says a dimensionless point can be defined:

https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/Point ... and_planes

As long as it can be defined and it's consistent, it exists.

This is an argument you can't win. Now you're going to say you can't see it. That's your problem. Now put up a link 5hat says dimensionless points can't exist.

PhilX

Of course I agree that if you say a dimensionless point is a conceptual construct of Mathematics then it exists but you appeared to assert that they actually exist inside solid objects are you now saying they don't actually exist?

It is consistent to define oompa loompas as white skinned and golden haired pygmies who come from Loompaland, which is a region of Loompa, a small isolated island in the hangdoodles. It is consistent to define a unicorn as an equine-like a beast with a single large, pointed, spiralling horn projecting from its forehead. It is consistent to define gravity as an effect upon an object due to a pushing battle between invisible white fairies and invisible pink fairies. Do oompa loompas, unicorns and these white or pink fairies exist?