That may be true in an abstract cognitive sense. But, if we didn't make the "connection" or "assumption" that a cliff edge (absence of solid ground) is really there, we could take a fatal step into the abyss. — Gnomon

The point was that we perceive it as a cliff edge, but whether the thing we perceive as a cliff edge is anything at all like what we perceive, is another question. So it's not a question of whether or not the perceived thing is dangerous, of course it is, the issue is what is that dangerous thing really like, and why is it dangerous.

Eugene was saying that the terrain (what is mapped), is the actual thing, but in reality, what is mapped is how the thing appears to us. And this is fundamental to map making in general, what is marked on the map, is things which seem to be important relative to some purpose. If the thing perceived as a cliff edge wasn't dangerous, we might not even notice it.

I don't think Plato "rejected infinity". As you noted, his concept of a realm of Forms is functionally infinite in a Potential sense. However, Aristotle, as a realist, may have rejected the notion of "actual Infinity" as impossible in the real world of constant beginnings & endings. However. mathematics is not inherently realistic, so it can accommodate Ideal concepts. — Gnomon

That's like summarizing the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in one paragraph! The Gateway to Marvels, you are, kind sir/madam as the case may be.

into Metaphysical Infinity, the realm of Possibility. :nerd: — Gnomon

You're on a roll, sir/madam!


Have you tried paraconsistent logic? I know this place...

:grin: