Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, April 29, 11:59:09pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: In fact.... Author: Duane [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09/11/04 2:42am In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "I think" on 09/10/04 10:22am In fact, I think I ought to mention this (or, rather, explicitly state it) The Tristam Shandy paradox was created to prove one thing: Set theory cannot be used to describe our natural world. Our understanding of the universe is the basis of all reality for us. Mathematics is an abstraction - a tool created by us to help us understand reality. Based on the axioms of set theory, Tristam Shandy DOES illustrate a paradox. There's no question about that. So the real question is this: Given that a man-made abstraction disagrees with our best understanding of reality, which do we throw out? The answer is clear: we throw out the "tool". In this case, that tool is NOT set theory, but it is the assumption that set theory can be used to understand our natural world. Imagine a carpenter, building a house. He tries to nail together some wood into a house frame, and after hammering and hammering, his hammer suddenly breaks. The carpenter looks at the splintered handle of his hammer, and says one of the two things: "Whoops. Better fix my hammer. Or maybe get a new one" OR "Well, I guess that houses can't be built using hammers and nails. Better give up." Clearly, the first choice is reasonable. But Wade (and a few others) would have you believe that we should give up on trying to build houses. Duane [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]