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.
Goggle Intuitionism, Formalism, Constructivism, et al and Philosophy of Mathematics and try to learn something philosophical about the subject you love.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
Do you have any quotes?
