Then why does Wittgenstein talk about pictures? — Metaphysician Undercover
And there we have it. The mathematical basis of the physical sciences rejected. — Banno
So here we have the heart of the issue. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, when you get to the end of the book, Wittgenstein admits that it's all wrong, and advises you to throw it all away. He basically says I've given you a demonstration of the wrong approach, now move along and find the right approach. But when you see from the very beginning, that it's all wrong... — Metaphysician Undercover
(x2 − 1)/(x − 1)
Let's work it out for x=1:
(12 − 1)/(1 − 1) = (1 − 1)/(1 − 1) = 0/0
Yes, indeed. I think we have finished. I've cut to the irrationality that lies at the core of your thinking: your rejection of the calculus. And not for the first time. — Banno
You misunderstand. — Metaphysician Undercover
yet,I don't reject calculus, I think it is very useful.
Do you accept that one can find the instantaneous velocity of an accelerating body?
— Banno
No, of course not, that's completely illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover
"2+2=4" doesn't say anything about the world — Metaphysician Undercover
(I'm speaking in Tractatus W's voice here). — Snakes Alive
Here, interestingly, is much the same point I was making to Meta. I suppose the point might be better phrased as: while 2+2=4 does not say anything about the world, its use tells us a great deal about the world.6.211 Indeed in real life a mathematical proposition is never what we want. Rather, we make use of mathematical propositions only in inferences from propositions that do not belong to mathematics to others that likewise do not belong to mathematics. (In philosophy the question, ‘What do we actually use this word or this proposition for?’ repeatedly leads to valuable insights.)
Anything to add about truth tables? — Banno
However, there is a short remark in the paper that seems to point in a new direction ("...we can only arrive at a correct analysis by what might be called, the logical investigation of the phenomena themselves, i.e., in a certain sense a posteriori, and no[t]: by conjecturing about a priori possibilities."). This seems to hint at a new method of inquiry (an a posteriori method of analysis), which is reflected in his later work. — Sam26
I'm in the middle of WoW I've lost interest in philosophy. :lol: I need a break. People in here take themselves to seriously, including moi. — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.