Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 18:42 (5175 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George,-I need a little more help, it appears to me that your argument is still semantic. The way I read your post here, it's like significant digits. You always cut off at the final term--your error term. We have nothing to disagree with.-But the number is *still* considered accurate up until the point you terminate the sequence. This is why the hard-coded number on Intel chips is a 66-bit instead of 64 bit number, so that when the value is truncated on the copy command, the value is wholly accurate for the entire length of the bit string. -If all these different algorithms stop at the same point, and have the same digit at that point, then they are wholly identical--they are calculating the same number. -When I did work in chemistry, we kept 4-digit precision which means that the third number after the decimal was considered suspect. In this case (PI) whatever we call the final digit we call "suspect" but it still means to me that we can calculate PI to an arbitrary precision.-> This idea of different forms or degrees of existence may have wider applications to the agnosticism debate. For instance, in what sense do fictional beings like Sherlock Holmes or Pagasus exist? Do legendary figures like Robin Hood, King Arthur or Jesus have a greater claim to existence? Can gods be said to have subjective existence, though not founded on objective evidence? Just a passing thought.-This is a good point. Some of these figures have archaeological evidence to support their existence--at least King Arthur and Jesus. Jesus is referred to in some Roman historical documents, and in general, there hasn't been many cases I can recall where such a rich mythology was built around person(s) who didn't exist at all. To the extent that we can, we seek evidence of the existence of historical figures. But again, its up to an individual to determine to what extent and to what weights these evidences provide, as historical records are always woefully incomplete. We know almost nothing of my 'nymsake Xenophanes of Colophon, yet we don't declare him nonexistent. Even the Personage of Socrates as a historical figure is fought over in some circles. In the end, some level of practicality must be brought in on the subject: Does it really matter?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"