Kristine
Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 30 2014,13:53) | Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2014,11:42) | Quote | 785 MapouDecember 30, 2014 at 1:28 pm
daveS: Quote | So, just as if we were measuring out two quantities of flour, we conclude that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of rational numbers.
|
No, I still don’t like it since I don’t believe for a moment that that there is such a thing as “the set of all real numbers”. One of the problems with many mathematicians is their refusal to acknowledge that we don’t live in a changeless universe. They inexplicably believe that operations occur in no time at all. So when they say “For every natural number n there is another number n+1, they ignore the fact that n+1 is an operation that has a duration. The expression “for every n” is an inexplicable magical poofery that assumes the very thing (infinity) that it is trying to prove or describe. It is self-referential fruitcake nonsense. It’s crackpottery in the not-even-wrong category.
Now, if you had said that the expansion of one set is faster than the expansion of another set, then there would be no contradictions at all.
|
This guy is hopelessly confused.
linky |
I think he realises he's painted himself into a corner, but can't admit he's made a fool of himself. Like Joe, with less swearing.
Amusingly, his "mathematics is wrong if you can't physically realise it in the universe" act is much more hyper-materialist than anything Teh Evil Darwinists have ever argued. |
CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP! This is a nail, this is a hammer, the board is UD, nailed across the shutter of ID's paradox! Does in WL Craig, as well. POTW? ETA - I'm calling it!
Edited by Kristine on Jan. 02 2015,19:23
-------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|