Our late friend Reuben Hersh was interested in these questions.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021, 7:58 PM Eric Charles
wrote:
> As I said a few days ago: I think traditionally, "mathematical" would
> have been synonymo
As I said a few days ago: I think traditionally, "mathematical" would have
been synonymous with "rigorous deduction from a minimal number of axioms",
but I doubt that approach is clear cut anymore.
I am pretty confident that modern mathematics is WAY more open-field than
that. The Stanford Encyc
Nick writes:
"""
I think I am starting to know the answer just by being badgered by you
guys. I can from relativity theory predict that during a solar eclipse a
distant star will pop out from behind the sun at T= =/- sec. I
can observe empirically that, indeed, the star popped out with
I feel left out. So I'll plop my 2 cents down, too. EricS' description of
consistifying several models to target reality mirrors Nick's original question
about the 2 transform requirement. Neither of these imply an overly simplified
single point of reality-check/validation. They both imply, to m
What Barry said.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021, 9:19 AM Barry MacKichan
wrote:
> Briefly, and in my opinion, mathematics can only make claims like ‘if A is
> true then B is true’. To say B is true, you must also say
Briefly, and in my opinion, mathematics can only make claims like ‘if
A is true then B is true’. To say B is true, you must also say A is
true. Eventually you have to go back to the beginning of the deductive
chain, and the truth of the initial statement is inductive, not
deductive or mathemati
