Links? Can you support this? — Banno

You missed this story?

https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/dnc-biden-allies-want-phone-carriers-to-vet-anti-vax-messages/

http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/full_story/27810003/article-Biden-allied-groups--including-the-DNC--planning-to-work-with-SMS-carriers-to-police-text-messages-critical-of-vaccines?instance=news_special_coverage_right_column

If you Google around you'll find plenty of other links to the same story, in addition to a number of spin pieces frantically trying to deny it. But they said it. The DNC wants the phone carriers to police your private text messages.

This is exactly what the Biden Administration, using the cover of the issue of Covid vaccination, is seeking to accomplish right now in the USA in intimate cooperation with the leadership and censorship activities of Facebook, Twitter, etc. — charles ferraro

What Psaki said today is very interesting and important. We keep hearing that Facebook and other social media companies can't be held liable for restrictions of free speech "because they're private companies." Nevermind that this is false; after all, southern lunch counters used to be able to discriminate against black customers until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared them to be "public accommodations," and legally bound by the 14th Amendment on equal protection. Likewise the phone company can't shut off your service because they don't like what you're saying on your calls, because they are legally defined as common carriers. In the end, an act of Congress will so label the social media companies and put an end to their rampant free speech suppression.

But what Psaki admitted today is that the government is pressuring Facebook to act as an agent of the government. In that case, there is legal precedent that Facebook is bound by the same Constitutional restrictions as the government is. The government can't hire a private company to restrict people's free speech rights, any more than the government can do so itself. By admitting that the government is telling Facebook to restrict the free speech of Americans, they put Facebook in legal jeopardy and give legal ammo to Trump's lawsuit against the social media companies.

Stay tuned. And remember the phrases public accommodation and common carrier, we'll be hearing more about them as the latest fight over free speech progresses.

it is obvious that science and associated technology is creating an extremely unhealthy environment — MondoR

I just happened to have recently had a minor medical procedure involving general anesthesia for a condition that, a hundred years ago, would have involved me probably dying of pain and infection. People who write things like what you wrote have not taken the time to reflect on the incredible net increase in human life expectancy and well-being that have taken place in the last hundred years as a result of -- clutch those pearls -- capitalism, and scientific progress. Walk in a room and flick a switch and the lights go on. Supermarkets full of food. Antibiotics. Car and plane travel. In 1950 the average US life expectancy was 68. Today it's 79. That's an incredible improvement in a relatively short time. Back in the 50's kids got Polio. When's the last time you ever heard of a case of Polio? Yes there are downsides to everything, but I would much rather be alive today than at any other time in human history. Inequality? Talk about the Middle ages. Serf's up!

I didn't get why you chose that clause in particular. I see now - it was just the nominated example. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Oh right, good point. Yes a "nominated example," great phrase. A synecdoche, as it were, a part that stands in for the whole, like "all hands on deck."

(Disclaimer yes, apology and placation no.) — TonesInDeepFreeze

I took it as very effective placation, so over-the-top I had to laugh.

Well, at least thank you for not saying 'thank you'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I said LOL because I was amused/charmed by your lengthy pre-apologies and disclaimers before providing your commentary on my technical points. I thought you went overboard but that you probably felt that you needed to go to those lengths to placate me. Which at that moment I found amusing. If that makes sense. But that's what was behind the LOL.

There's a problem with the implementation of the new system, which is that you no longer get the total post count. So you can't distinguish newcomers from grizzled veterans. It's helpful to know that. So it's not just a question of whether one likes the new system. It's that an important piece of contextual information was deleted to make room for the new system. I'd like to see the old overall post count returned, in addition to the new upvote count.

No, I think you misinterpret this. I say it's "your" bijective equivalence, because you are the one proposing it, not I. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not proposing it, I'm reporting it from Cantor's work in the 1870's. You wouldn't call it "my" theory of relativity, or "my" theory of evolution, just because I happened to invoke those well-established scientific ideas in a conversation. Minor semantic point though so let's move on.

So "yours" is in relation to "mine", and anyone else who supports your proposition (even if you characterize it as "established math") is irrelevant. If you wish to support your proposition with an appeal to authority that's your prerogative. In philosophy, the fact that something is "established" is not adequate as justification. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I name-drop the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution I have to provide evidence? And if I don't I'm merely appealing to authority? Not an auspicious start to a post that actually did get better, so never mind this digression as to who gets credit for the idea of cardinal equivalence, and what is my burden of proof for simply mentioning that Cantor thought of it 150 years ago.

This is what I do not understand. Tell me if this is correct. Through your bijection, you can determine cardinality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Through a bijection we can determine cardinal equivalence. If two sets X and Y have a bijection between them -- something that can be objectively determined -- we say they are cardinally equivalent. We still don't know what a cardinal number is. We only know that X and Y are cardinally equivalent.

But are you saying that you do this without using cardinal numbers? What is cardinality without any cardinal numbers? — Metaphysician Undercover

There's cardinal equivalence without cardinal numbers. If there's a bijection between X and Y, then X and Y are cardinally equivalent. But we still haven't said what a cardinal is.

It's a bit like saying that the score in a baseball game is tied -- without saying what the score is. Maybe that helps. Or in the classic example of bijective equivalence, I can put a glove on my hand and determine that the number of fingers on the glove is the same as the number of fingers on my hand, simply by matching up the glove-fingers to the hand-fingers bijectively. But that doesn't tell me whether the number of fingers is 4, 5, or 12. Only that the number of fingers is the same on the glove and on my hand, by virtue of matching the fingers up bijectively.

So via establishing a bijection between the glove-fingers and the hand-fingers, I can say that the number of fingers is cardinally equivalent between the glove and my hand. But I still can't assign a particular cardinal number to it.

What I think is that you misunderstand what "logically prior" means. Here's an example. We define "human being" with reference to "mammal", and we define "mammal" with reference to "animal". Accordingly, "animal" is a condition which is required for "mammal" and is therefore logically prior. Also, "mammal" is logically prior to "animal". You can see that as we move to the broader and broader categories the terms are vaguer and less well defined, as would happen if we define "animal" with "alive", and "alive" with "being". In general, the less well defined is logically prior. — Metaphysician Undercover

If one thing is defined in terms of some other thing, the latter is logically prior. As is the case with cardinal numbers, which are defined as particular ordinal numbers.

Now let me see if I understand the relation between what is meant by "cardinality" and "cardinal number". Tell me if this is wrong. An ordinal number necessarily has a cardinality, so cardinality is logically prior to ordinal numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd agree that given some ordinal number, it's cardinally equivalent to some other sets. It doesn't "have a cardinality" yet because we haven't defined that. We've only established that a given ordinal is cardinally equivalent to some other set.

And to create a cardinal number requires a bijection with ordinals, so ordinals are logically prior to cardinal numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

So we have this notion of cardinal equivalence. We want to define a cardinal number. In the old days we said that a cardinal number was the entire class of all sets cardinally equivalent to a given one. In the modern formulation, we say that the cardinal number of a set is the least ordinal cardinally equivalent to some given set.

Note per your earlier objection that by "least" I mean the $\in$ relation, which well-orders any collection of ordinals. If you prefer "precedes everything else" instead of "least," just read it that way.

.

Where I have a problem is with the cardinality which is logically prior to the ordinal numbers. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Cardinal equivalence is logically prior to ordinals in the sense that every ordinal is cardinally equivalent to some other sets. At the very least, every ordinal is cardinally equivalent to itself.

When you use the word "cardinality" you are halfway between cardinal numbers and cardinal equivalence, so you confuse the issue. Better to say that cardinal equivalence is logically prior to ordinals; and that (in the modern formulation) ordinals are logically prior to cardinals.

It cannot have numerical existence, because it is prior to ordinal numbers. Can you explain to me what type of existence this cardinality has, which has no numerical existence, yet is a logical constitutive of an ordinal number. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well we should banish the word cardinality, because it's vague as to whether you mean cardinal equivalence or cardinal number. What kind of existence does a bijection between two sets have? Well a bijection is a particular kind of function, and functions have mathematical existence. In fact if X and Y are sets, and f is a function between them, then f is a set too. So whatever kind of mathematical existence sets have, that's the kind a bijection has.

Some philosophers would say that functions have a higher "type" than sets, but we're not doing type theory, and in set theory everything is a set, at the same level. But if your mathematical ontology puts functions into a different level of existence than sets, then whatever level functions live in, that's what a bijection is. A bijection is just a kind of function.

LOL
— fishfry

I don't know what your point is there. — TonesInDeepFreeze

When you do, you will be enlightened. :-)

I am not suggesting that my comments supplant yours. — TonesInDeepFreeze

LOL I think you made your point. It's all good. Maybe you can straighten out @Metaphysician Undercover :-)

In other words, you agree that it's incorrect to say that ordinals are logically prior to cardinals. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I said ordinals are logically prior to cardinals, in the modern von Neumann interpretation. I explained this several times. It's not right for you to hijack yet another thread by pointlessly trolling me like this.

despite my lack of understanding of your "bijective equivalence" — Metaphysician Undercover

Two sets are bijectively equivalent if there is a bijection between them. In that case we say they have the same cardinality. We can do that without defining a cardinal number. That's the point. The concept of cardinality can be defined even without defining what a cardinal number is.

But you say it's "my" bijective equivalence as if this is some personal theory I'm promoting on this site. On the contrary, it's established math. You reject it. I can't talk you out of that.

Well then it's incorrect to say that ordinality is logically prior to cardinality. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're absolutely right. It would be incorrect to say that, because it's not true. I was pretty sure that I HADN'T said that, and I went back to page 2 of this thread and found what I actually said:

ordinals are logically prior to cardinals — fishfry

As you see, I said that ordinals are logically prior to cardinals. That's because cardinal numbers ARE particular ordinals. That's correct. That's what I said.

Now I don't think your misquote of me was deliberately disingenuous. Rather, I think you don't have the mathematical sophistication to follow this conversation at all. Because in my previous post to you, I already explained the distinction between cardinality, which is an equivalence relation based on bijection; and cardinal numbers, which are particular ordinals. I see that went right over your head, leading to you inaccurately quote me based on your ignorance about what I already explained to you previously.

And frankly I'm not going to get into it with you about this stuff. Go read my long article on the transfinite ordinals, or read the relevant Wiki page, or read a book on set theory. I can't argue with you about established, universally-accepted math. Unless you want to tell me what you think you know that John von Neumann didn't.

If there is already cardinality inherent within ordinality then the closest you can get is to say that they are logically codependent. But if order is based in quantity, then cardinality is logically prior. — Metaphysician Undercover

You lack the understanding to even know what you're saying. Again: Cardinality is inherent. How you define a cardinal number isn't. That you don't understand the distinction shows that you need to do a little homework on your own before you can credibly engage on this topic. There is no philosophical point involved. Two sets may have the same cardinality, without there being any notion of ordinal at all. But cardinal numbers are defined as particular ordinals. Cardinal numbers are subtly different than cardinality. I explained this to you previously, you either didn't read it or didn't understand it (not an exclusive or) and went ahead and deliberately misquoted me. It's tedious.

"Least", lesser, and more, are all quantitative terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah yeah. I can't help you out. You should make an honest attempt to learn this material. I have made mighty efforts to explain basic order theory to you. You don't want to hear it. I am under no obligation to get into yet another conversation about this. I'm going to take my cue from John von Neumann here.

I didn't say that anyone denied it. I said it shouldn't be denied. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I just laughed, man. I think we're two of a kind. Peace.

Throughout the thread, it seems to me that regularly take technical and heuristic disagreements, corrections, and even mere technical qualifications as attempts to undermine you personally. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Your pickiness with everything I write annoys me. Especially because half the time you're actually wrong on the facts. I got bored of arguing with you in the other thread and I've achieved the same state of blissful detachment here.

It may be that your pickiness annoys me because I have the same turn of mind, and we are always annoyed by those qualities in others that remind us of ourselves. That said, I've had enough for one day.

Merely, I added stated the qualification, and said that it should not be denied, while not meaning to imply that you personally denied it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It's in your obfuscatory and unnecessarily argumentative mind that anyone denied it. You just made that up. Nobody denied anything. And I just gave you a link to Rudin, the number one classic real analysis text, that defines the extended reals exactly as I did, as the reals with two symbols adjoined having certain formal properties. You are wrong on the pedagogy AND wrong on the facts. My friend, if it's in Rudin, it's right. End of story.

Not a major point in context of this thread; but it is a technicality that should not be deined. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Was it denied? Or simply omitted according to the common-sense principle of responding to a question at the level at which it was asked?

I refer you to Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis (pdf link), for decades the standard undergrad text for math major real analysis. On page 11 of the linked edition he says that the extended reals are the reals with two symbols adjoined.

So you are wrong on the pedagogy AND wrong on the math. Not for the first time.

They told me not to argue with the teacher. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Maybe I should call your parents.

But in some treatments, the points are specified to be certain objects, so that the set of reals with extensions is a definite set. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I did not think this was an appropriate context in which to mention the two-point compactification of the real line. Do you? You must have driven your teachers crazy. That's ok, I did too.

Wolfram uses "real", which I suppose is better than "cardinal" or "Ordinal" a
s a definition. — Banno

The $\pm \infty$ of the extended real numbers are not the same as the transfinite ordinals and cardinals. The extended reals are the standard reals with two meaningless symbols $\pm \infty$ adjoined, and given certain formal properties such as $a + \infty = \infty$ and so forth, entirely for the purpose of being able to say things like, "as x goes to infinity" rather than, "as x gets arbitrarily large." The extended reals are a notational convenience in calculus and integration theory. They should not be confused with the transfinite ordinals and cardinals. I didn't look at the Wolfram article but if they contributed to this confusion, then bad Wolfram!

ps -- Ok I looked at the article. First they start out by talking about infinity as one of the points adjoined to the real line to make the extended reals. Then they casually conflate this to Cantor's work.

Bad Wolfram. Bad article.

It's on my "to do" list. — Banno

No prob, I regretted not adding a smiley to my earlier post. I didn't expect anyone to read all that, but the tl;dr is that ordinals are an important class of transfinite numbers even though fewer people have heard of them than have heard of cardinals. Smileys to make up for previous omission. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Isn't this circular? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, although it's slightly tricky. We are distinguishing between two sets having the same cardinality -- meaning that there is a bijection between them -- and assigning them a cardinal -- a specific mathematical object that can represent their cardinality.

Doesn't "least" already imply cardinality, — Metaphysician Undercover

No, "least" is in terms of ordinality, not cardinality.

such that cardinality is already inherent within the ordinals, — Metaphysician Undercover

Well it is, I agree with that. Take for example the ordinals $\omega$ and $\omega + 1$. They have the same cardinality, as they can be represented by two distinct orderings of the same set, as I endeavored to explain to you in the other thread. But they are different ordinals, with $\omega \lt \omega + 1$.

So yes, cardinality is already inherent within the ordinals. Each ordinal has a cardinality. In the old days, before von Neumann, we identified a cardinal number with the class of all sets having that cardinality. After von Neumann, we identified a cardinal with the least ordinal of all the ordinals having that cardinality. The benefit is that the latter definition makes a cardinal into a particular set; whereas the former definition is a class (extension of a predicate) but not a set.

to allow the designation of a least ordinal? — Metaphysician Undercover

Any nonempty collection of ordinals always has a least member, by the definition and construction of ordinals.

Then the claim that ordinals are logically prior to cardinals would actually be false, because more and less is already assumed within "ordinal". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. Not "more or less," but "prior in the order," if you prefer more accurate verbiage.
You insist on conflating order with quantity, and that's an elementary conceptual error. In an order relation x < y, it means that x precedes y in the order. x is not "smaller than" y in a quantitative sense. I can't do anything about your refusal to recognize the distinction between quantity and order.

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

Should they use washing machines and cars?

Can you put a time for it when this change happened? — ssu

1923. Found this in John von Neumann and Hilbert's School of Foundations of Mathematics (pdf link)

"The definition of ordinals and cardinals was given by von Neumann in the paper Zur
Einführung der transniten Zahlen (1923)"

They also mention that von Neumann was still cleaning up his definition in 1928, since definitions by transfinite recursion were on shaky ground in that era.

The modern definition is the von Neumann cardinal assignment. Von Neumann defined a cardinal as the least ordinal having that cardinality.

Prior to that, cardinals were the equivalence class of all sets having that cardinality. The problem was that this was a proper class and not a set, so you couldn't manipulate cardinals using the rules of set theory. Von Neumann's definition defines each cardinal as a particular set, which is more convenient.

can god make a square circle? its not a limit of god. its just wordplay — MikeListeral

The unit circle in the taxicab metric is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on that page. Better to use "married bachelor," because in fact there are square circles!

why waste your time trying to solve non existent problems — MikeListeral

"Good sense about trivialities is better than nonsense about things that matter." -- Quote on a math professor's door that I saw once.

Infinities - all of them - are cardinalities. — Banno

Actually all the infinities are ordinals. Even the cardinals are ordinals these days, though they didn't use to be. That was all explained in the post I wrote that you were kind enough to thank me for, while announcing that you weren't going to read it. It's true that most people have heard about the transfinite cardinals and not the ordinals, but FWIW, ordinals are logically prior to cardinals, in the modern formulation.

↪fishfry OK, I'm not reading all that... but thank you. — Banno

LOL. But thank you for saying thanks!

This is not to say that our conceptual schemes create the world, but as Putnam writes, they don't just mirror it either (Putnam 1978, — Joshs

I can accept that.

Seems to me if you take a cup of water from an infinft sea, you still have an infinite sea. — Banno

And a cup of water! Go figure.

Starting here, looking at the my posts (I'm GrandMinnow) and fishfry's posts:: — TonesInDeepFreeze

At the risk of further encouraging your fixation by replying to you: For the record, I reread the thread in question and I agree with myself. I stand by every word I wrote. Moreover, your use of onto was regarding a "claim," and not a mapping. You write imprecisely then complain when you're misunderstood. I will let you have the last word after this.

Here is your direct quote:

One doesn't have to provide much argument that the following claim onto itself is not self-contradictory: — GrandMinnow

How would anyone take from that, that you are referring to an onto mapping rather than meaning a "claim unto itself" and simply misusing the locution? That's how I took it then, that's how I took it tonight, and that's how any native speaker of English would read it. That you meant to write "unto" but wrote "onto" by mistake; because unto makes sense in context, and onto does not. Re-reading your sentence over and over with "onto," i can't figure out what you are trying to say. "The following claim onto itself is not contradictory?" I mentally swapped in "unto" and thought nothing of it. No other interpretation is possible. What is a "claim onto itself?"

It's your own muddled writing that leads people to have no idea what you're talking about.

And now you can have the last word. I will not be replying to you anymore even if you post easily-refuted examples as you just did. You don't express yourself well and you blame other people for misunderstanding you. You should have the self-awareness to remedy your own imprecise writing.

But when we model the world we’re not capturing it in a bottle, — Joshs

None of what you wrote convinces me that there's no world out there. Except on the days that I'm certain I'm a Boltzmann brain. And even then, there is a world outside my mind.

But fundamentally, the idea of a world of things existing independently of us is incoherent. — Joshs

Not a naive realist then. But surely the world didn't come into existence when you were born. Or when the first fish crawled out of the ocean (or whatever they did, I'm not a biologist).

I am out of my depth chatting with someone who drops the phrase Hegelian dialectic. I didn't actually understand anything you wrote. I should stay out of this. Except to say that for what it's worth, and for sake of discussion, I'd be perfectly happy to defend the thesis that "Math is nowhere." On my formalist days, of course.

Again, you really amaze me with the nonsense you come up with sometimes fishfry. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then surely it's no loss to you to stop talking to me.

But pi is not a particular real number? How can I have a conversation with you? It's like a trained brain surgeon arguing about medicine with someone who just learned how to apply a band-aid. You lack the knowledge to be an interesting conversational partner. And then you get insulting about your ignorance.

Pi is not a particular real number? Wow.

And, let's take this one point again: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Like the girls in junior high school used to say: Let's not and say we did.

Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. Why is that not a "principle of mathematics"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't want to be rude but at some point I have to stop responding and I'm at that point. The definition of a particular number is not sufficiently general or broad or foundational to be called a principle.

It's clearly wrong that the ancients knew pi as a real number. — Metaphysician Undercover

What the ancients knew is you changing the subject. It has no bearing on the nature of pi or whether pi may be called a "principle of mathematics," which was yet another error on your part.

Sure, you seem to have run out of intelligent things to say. — Metaphysician Undercover

I got tired of you trolling me and have put a stop to it the only way I can.

This is clearly wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's clearly wrong that pi is a particular real number? @Meta, please understand that you give me no basis to continue this conversation. Maybe we'll chat about something else in some other thread sometime. For what it's worth, and for your mathematical education, pi is a particular real number.

But I don't think that is the main problem with you. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I read this far and gave up. You started out by agreeing that your exposition was unclear and that I was asking clarifying questions. I became hopeful that a productive and interesting conversation could ensue. Then you go back to the personal insults. Have a nice day.

ps -- Also my name's not Betty.

The vast majority of mathematical principles, like pi, and the Pythagorean theorem which we discussed, are not fictional, and that is why mathematics is so effective. — Metaphysician Undercover

Pi and the Pythagorean theorem are not mathematical "principles."

So there is nothing UNREASONABLE in the effectiveness of mathematics. You can argue from ridiculous premises, as to what constitutes "true", and assume that the Pythagorean theorem is not true, as you did, but then it's just the person making that argument, who is being unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you knew or understood more math, you'd understand the point. That you come up with "pi" as an example of a mathematical principle exemplifies the problem. Pi is a particular real number, known to the ancients. Hardly a principle.

The word "set" is a physical thing, which signifies something. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're not willing to agree that set is a term of art in math that designates a purely abstract thing, having nothing to do with the physical world, we just can't have a conversation.

And it only has meaning to a human being in the world, with the senses to perceive it. Therefore sets, as what is signified by that word, are bound by the real world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that because humans are physical and sets are a product of the human mind, that sets are therefore physical? By that definition everything is physical, yes, but you are ignoring the distinction between physical and abstract things. Makes for a pointless conversation.

Now you're catching on. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well then your point is trivial and pointless. Everything is physical if we can imagine it. The Baby Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the three-headed hydra, all physical because the mind is physical. Whatever man. Pointless to conversate further then if you hide behind such a nihilistic and unproductive point.

Consider though, that the physical forces of the real world are not the "reason why" we think what we do, as we have freedom of choice, to think whatever we want, within the boundaries of our physical capacities. The physical forces are the boundaries. So we really are bounded by the real world, in our thinking. We do not apprehend the boundaries as boundaries though, because we cannot get beyond them to the other side, to see them as boundaries, they are just where thinking can't go. Therefore it appears to us, like we are free to think whatever we want, because our thinking doesn't go where it can't go. — Metaphysician Undercover

What a bullshit argument. I'm not going to play. Can we please stop now?

You will not understand the boundaries unless you accept that they are there, and are real, and inquire as to the nature of them. The boundaries appear to me, as the activity where thinking slips away andis replaced by other mental activities such as dreaming, and can no longer be called "thinking". We have a similar, but artificial boundary we can call the boundary between rational thinking and irrational thinking, reasonable and unreasonable. This is not the boundary of thinking, but it serves as a model of how this type of boundary is vague and not well defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

So everything is physical because some mind thought it up. What a childish talking point to deny abstract objects.

I skipped the rest, this is too childish. All the best. You've talked yourself into an unsupportable position. Everything is physical because a human thought of it. Therefore there are no abstract objects. I can't continue. I see no continuation. You won't acknowledge the existence of abstract or fictional objects not bound by the world. What basis is there for me to continue?

I’m in love with my own opinion, and I don’t want to be. I want a divorce. — James Riley

My favorite bumper sticker: "Don't believe everything you think!"

To see math everywhere is to pay attention to a second order derived action that we perform that covers over its basis in living. — Joshs

If I understand what you're saying (and it wasn't till the very end that I thought I did), existence is what it is, and math is a secondary thing that humans use to model and explain it. In which case "math is everywhere" spoken by humans, is in the same sense that "echoes are everywhere" is to bats. Which is to say, "math is everywhere" is purely a human-centric conceit. Math is nowhere at all, except in the mind of humans. Which I believe, on my formalist days. And disbelieve, on my Platonic days. After all 5 is prime, and it's hard to argue that it would be false if there were no people around.

I'll go a step further and say it's not a potential human: It's a human. But she can kill it, carte blanche, as far as I'm concerned. — James Riley

I respect that moral position. At least it's logical. My objection to the "lump of tissue unless Scott Peterson did it" argument is not the immorality of abortion, but rather the illogic of the position.

I personally believe life begins at conception, if not before. So yes, abortion is homicide. But it's not murder unless we say it is. — James Riley

I totally respect that point of view. It's intellectually honest. "Abortion is homicide but not murder."

That's very different than saying a fetus is a clump of cells on the one hand, and capable of being murdered if Scott Peterson does it. That is a logically incoherent position.

I suspect we are in agreement. If the pro-choicers would simply say as you do, that abortion kills a potential human but that it's justified on whatever grounds, that would be logically defensible.

For what it's worth I'm a safe, rare, and legal guy. That used to be a perfectly sensible moderate position. These days it's hopelessly regressive. You're supposed to "shout your abortion" as if it's a great achievement. That, I find morally depraved.

It's not murder if it's legal. Homicide, yes, murder, no. — James Riley

Which is exactly why I used the word murder and not homicide. Are you saying abortion is homicide?

I don't "might say." I do say it is the mother's choice. It can be, because it is. It's no comfort, cold or otherwise, to the fetus who happens to kill it (or not). The comfort of the fetus doesn't matter unless the mother says it matters. The mother is the sovereign ruler over all fetus' that reside within her. That is the way it should be. So says me. — James Riley

I did feel that I addressed this point. It's cold comfort to the fetus that it was the mom and not the dad who killed him. But I already said that. I'll have to say that your post didn't help answer my question, since I had already anticipated that line of argument that the mother can kill the fetus any time she feels like it. That the fetus is an undifferentiated clump if the mother kills it, and "unborn baby Conner" if the father kills it. What is the moral or philosophical principle involved? "Women get special consideration for murder," is the only one I can see here.

Not to change the subject too much, but for sake of clarity: Are you "my body, my choice" with respect to experimental vaccines? Use of illicit substances?

No, you regularly ignore and misconstrue, sometimes even to the point of posting as if I said the bald negation of what I actually said. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Is it possible that you're not always as clear in your meaning as you think you are?

Meanwhile, I respond on point to you, and make every reasonable effort not to misconstrue you or mischaracterize your remarks, and I'm happy to correct myself if I did. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Can you see that it's possible that this is not my perception?

I am truly curious why you even disputed it to begin with, and then persisted in yet another post. Especially as this is typical with you. You weren't reading correctly? Your weren't reading correctly because you mostly only skim? A mental lapse? A mental lapse because you have a continual preconception that when I disagree with you or question whether your claim is supported that I am bound to be wrong about it? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I humbly apologize for whatever grave offense I may have caused. Peace be with you, my friend.

ps -- But ok, you asked a fair question and you deserve an answer. You said "The number of particles is finite." Now you proposed that as an axiom to be added to the standard axioms of set theory. Being familiar with the latter, and not knowing what a "particle" is, I assumed you meant mathematical sets, or mathematical points. In which case your formulation would indeed be in contradiction with the axiom of infinity.

So I asked. And you THEN -- after I challenged you on this point -- admitted that "particle" is a primitive, something you had not said before. After you said that, it was clear to me that there could indeed be only finitely many of them without creating a contradiction.

Can you see that I had to ask you twice in order to dig out your hidden assumption that "particle" is a brand new primitive in set/physics theory? Without that information, your statement that there are only finitely many particles makes no sense.

Therefore can you see that my asking twice was necessary in order to smoke out the hidden information you didn't bother to say up front? And that this would be a perfectly sensible explanation for my having to ask you twice about your claim?

You see you are not always as clear as you think you are. If you want to add new primitives to the theory, and you don't bother to tell me that, then it's perfectly understandable that I would have confusion about your meaning.

(ps, a couple of hours later) Hilbert's sixth problem is to axiomatize physics. It's still an open problem. So if you think you have an idea, or if you even claim it's logically possible, the burden is on you to be crystal clear in your thoughts; because nobody in 120 years has axiomatized physics, let alone unified it with set theory, which seems logically contradictory on its face (to me at least).