|
|
MoeBlee wrote:
> Lester Zick wrote:
> > On 30 Aug 2006 15:19:23 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >Lester Zick wrote:
> > >> On 29 Aug 2006 16:28:45 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >Lester Zick wrote:
... (someone said?)
> > >> >> >I'm not talking about "the universe" but about a universe (also
> > >> >> >understood as a domain of discourse) for a given model.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I believe Ross's comment was that there is a universe. Not that there
> > >> >> was a model of a universe ... [foam]
> > >> >See, that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You THINK
> > >> >that I'm talking about imaginary models of "THE universe" [all caps
> > >> >added] even though I said I am NOT talking about that.
> > >>
> > >> Then you're not being responsive to Ross's comment.
> > >
> > >No, I was precisely responsive, as I stated that set theory is not
> > >inconsistent for its lack of a universal set.
> >
> > Which means exactly what in relation to Ross's comment that there is a
> > universe?
>
> He claims that ZFC is inconsistent for the fact that there is no
> universal set in ZFC.
Well, Moeblee, you're arguing with one crank against that crank's
(mis?)interpretation of a comment by another crank. Who can say what
Ross means? I think this is the post under discussion on 29 Aug:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/c79ada286bc46247?scoring=d&;
Notice that Ross started: "I turn to Kant and Hegel and argue from
authority." So explicitly (if anything Ross says means what it appears
to), he is not arguing from reason, but from authority, which cannot be
argued with, only rejected.
This particular post once again raised the old question: Is Ross a
program? The prosodic gawkiness, the eclectic incorporation of
Rossisms, the third thing, could this really be a human post? But
anyway, along the way he says"
> In physics, less than absolute zero is as well hotter than any finite
> temperature. The closer we examine subatomic particles, the smaller
> they appear to be, the more broadly we examine the universe, the larger
> it appears to be.
Surely this "universe" is the physical one? Then he makes a comment:
> Where there's a universal set, and there are only sets, infinite sets
> are equivalent.
Hmm, "universal set"... To finish:
> There is a universe. So, ZF is inconsistent. (1)
Why should this "universe" be something in set theory, rather than the
physical universe, or anything Lester might or might not mean by
"universe"? You think that for the apparent implication (1) to work it
must be? But why _should_ (1) make any sense at all? None of the rest
of Ross's post makes any sense, and it's not even _supposed_ to be
argument from reason - he said so himself.
<snip>
> > And how 'bout if you please go yourself.
Yes, from time to time the foam coming from Zick's mouth turns foul.
Well.
Brian Chandler
imaginatorium.org">http://imaginatorium.org
|
|