If there is such a thing, then it is part of "our world". And so the mathematical axioms must be "true to it", in order to be correct. Then the chess ...
I've never seen any such definition of "division". The usual definition involves dividing something and this has nothing to do with multiplying. You t...
I even provided quotes from Dr. Feynman, describing how when electrical energy moves, it moves through the field, rather than as electrons moving. But...
You're not going to get very far by limiting "immaterial" in this way. It's a straw man which doesn't in any way represent what a person who believes ...
This is where I have a disagreement. There are many instance of a/b, which cannot be called an element. As I described already, in many cases a cannot...
I can't answer this question without an acceptable definition of "number". It seems mine has been rejected. But as I just described, one cannot be div...
You don't seem to understand. "One" does not represent a quantity which can be divided. Any multitude such as two, three, or four, can be divided, bec...
I've already given my proof, based in my definition of "number". It's in my posts directed at Banno. Don't listen to Banno here because Banno's form o...
They think they've proved it. Staring from a false premise does not make a sound proof. But if one doesn't recognize the falsity of the premise... "1"...
There was no point to your example, as is your habit. You started from a false premise and tried to make something out of it. I took my definition of ...
I do not argue against the fact that mathematicians believe that .999..., and 1 refer to the same value. The difference between these two is a differe...
No, clearly that's not "the same way". You, as a growing human being, have grown taller over time. The mountain's circumference has not grown larger a...
No, I believe the two symbols have different meaning, and I've given the reasons why I believe that. You claim that the symbols refer to the same thin...
I invited anyone to provide a better definition of "number", one which would provide for these "non-particular quantities" to be called numbers, but n...
No that's not my contention. One is a quantity, two is a quantity, three is a quantity and so is four, etc.. 1/9 is not a quantity because it is a fra...
It might be a normal way of speaking, so long as the meaning is understood. And the meaning is that the circumference of the cone is smaller at one en...
Right, that's why one is called a number, it's a value representing a particular quantity (as per the definition I offered), the quantity of 1. On the...
One is a particular quantity, and therefore a number; 1/9 is not. This is because a fraction must be a fraction of something in order that it signify ...
No, a cone is the whole thing, not just one end or the other. One cone is smaller than another cone, but it makes no sense to say that a cone is small...
Seems you have a short memory. What we previously determined is that I do not believe that 2+2 is the same thing as 4. Remember? You argued that 2+2 i...
Sorry to have to inform you of this, but this talk makes no sense to me. And I've never heard anyone talk like this prior to seeing it on this thread....
Sorry Banno, but in logic definitions are prerequisite. Family resemblance might suffice as a description of meaning in common vernacular, but mathema...
I think the system of real numbers allows that "number" remain undefined, indefinite, and this is why "the real numbers" is not a fixed system. Rigoro...
To support this thought, they define "motion" in very strange ways, as Kenosha has demonstrated. This makes the thing described as "motion" something ...
I take my definition of "number" from OED: "an arithmetical value representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations". No...
A numeral is a special type of sign. To know whether .999... qualifies as a numeral would require a definition which dictates the criteria for being a...
Whether or not .999...qualifies as a numeral is a matter of interpretation. What I meant, as you seem to have difficulty in understanding, is that it ...
Try this: .999... is not a number because it has a indefinite extension. A number is an object and an object cannot have an indefinite extension. So d...
Your wrong, it's not Galileo's definition of motion. It's yours. Right, that's exactly what you claimed motion is: See what I mean? You are taking an ...
Maybe this is evidence of that difference between metaphysics and mysticism which you have been describing. Metaphysics, in the tradition of philosoph...
I agree that to have changed position implies that something has moved. But motion is defined as. and the word is used to refer to, the activity of mo...
I think that's ridiculous. My tea cup is sitting on the table right now, and it used to be on the counter. So you say my cup is in motion because it's...
If it is moving, there is no place where it is.. That's contradictory, to say that it is moving, and that it is at a place. The frog intercepts the fl...
For the reasons alluded to in my last post, and mentioned earlier in the thread, I really think it is necessary to separate space and time conceptuall...
Motion, in the everyday sense, looks like something not having a determinable position. We often describe it as what happens when a thing changes posi...
Yes, and the eternalist idea that there is motion when nothing is moving, is contradiction, plain and simple. You can try to hide that contradiction b...
Are you familiar with Aristotle's cosmological argument? This is the argument which is used to refute both materialism and Platonic realism, and give ...
That's the first time I've seen "eternity" described without reference to temporal concepts. So I don't really think it's the classical interpretation...
In the way I've been describing in this thread, as interpretation. What I've said is that an individual person, as a mystic, cannot properly interpret...
You could start with Plato's divided line, the divisions of knowledge, and see that the one half is knowledge which deals with Ideas or Forms. The low...
If the human body is simply responding, or reacting to sensory stimulation, then how do you account for intention, which is the desire to change the s...
Maybe you could elucidate this; it appears quite confused. It seems like you are saying that movement of the body, and emotion, are one and the same t...
This is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that metaphysicians apply logic to the mystical revelations. This is why metaphysics is so different...
This "middle layer" doesn't even resemble any metaphysics that I'm aware of. Are you sure that the author is not just trying to change the way that we...
Comments