Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
This Old Dog Is Learning New Tricks

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on September 14, 2001 00:57:30 UTC

Hello Harv,

I have used ‘contingent’ to mean what is also referred to as “logically indeterminate.” By virtue of the fact that we have no set theory without paradox, set theory itself is ‘logically indeterminate,’ or as I prefer, contingent. That is, it can be shown to be true, and it can be shown to be false. Its very own deductive process produces these paradoxes.

Nothing *necessary* can be contingent (logically indeterminate), so I see a logical fallacy in the argument that maths is prescriptive.

Mathematics is descriptive. Yes, set theory is almost always true, but *prescriptive* phenomena do not have the luxury of proving true “almost” always.

I’ll try to keep my terms current.

Peace out :)


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins