Nick - the snippet below illustrates the key problem with invoking category errors. I think giving the infinitesimal point speed and direction makes sense and you do not. You see a category error and I do not. So how do we adjudicate? We can't: there's no objective methodology for saying if a category error exists. (BTW, appeals to 'common sense' have as much objectivity as Ryle's invocation of absurdity: not much).
So if there's no remotely objective way of even saying whether we have a category error, then it seems pointless to try and analyse calculus in terms of its category errors. Why use a tool when all the evidence suggests that the tool is broken? Robert On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > If one defines a point as having no extension in space and time, one CANNOT > in common sense give it speed and direction in the next sentence > <snip> > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
