Dick,

You can make an assumption such as "we will not exclude the seemingly impossible". That is a valid assumption. However, one of your other assumptions is "everything I will present will be true by definition" ("Foundations", by R.Stafford, Chapter I, Part III -- The Approach).

If everything in the paper is true by definition, then how can "reality be a set of numbers" be true by definition when the concept of a number hinges upon 'numbers' existing 'out there'? This is not a fact that is true by definition. It is quite possible that numbers don't exist, but are only abstract representations by humans. Nominalists are well-known for their attacks against Platonists for holding to universals, pi in the sky, etc.

Warm regards, Harv

• You are off the subject Harv! - doctordick - April 12, 2002 - 13:54 UTC
  • Deja vu - aurino - April 12, 2002 - 14:09 UTC
    • Harv makes it clear in my mind! - doctordick - April 12, 2002 - 14:55 UTC
    • Not avoiding the question - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 16:27 UTC
      • Four is enough - aurino - April 12, 2002 - 16:50 UTC
        • On the money Aurino! - doctordick - April 12, 2002 - 17:04 UTC
        • Case in point - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 17:40 UTC
          • Right on Harv - darwinpoodle - April 12, 2002 - 17:58 UTC
          • Have fun Harv! - doctordick - April 12, 2002 - 18:53 UTC
            • Research? - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 19:18 UTC
              • It's a Joke Harv! - doctordick - April 14, 2002 - 20:58 UTC
          • Whatever - aurino - April 12, 2002 - 19:04 UTC
            • Herein lies the problem - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 19:44 UTC
              • Analogy and question - darwinpoodle - April 12, 2002 - 20:33 UTC
                • Splitting hairs - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
                  • Point taken - darwinpoodle - April 14, 2002 - 01:23 UTC
                • About the ellipse in your question - pmartin - April 15, 2002 - 20:16 UTC
                  • Follow up - darwinpoodle - April 16, 2002 - 00:57 UTC
                    • Deja vu - pmartin - April 16, 2002 - 04:41 UTC
                      • A great help - darwinpoodle - April 16, 2002 - 12:31 UTC
                        • You're welcome - pmartin - April 16, 2002 - 15:02 UTC
                          • If I told you I would have to... - darwinpoodle - April 16, 2002 - 15:09 UTC
                            • Fair enough - pmartin - April 16, 2002 - 16:55 UTC
  • I don't think so - harvey1 - April 12, 2002 - 22:22 UTC
    • I disagree! - doctordick - April 15, 2002 - 04:24 UTC
      • I wish I could, but I can't - harvey1 - April 15, 2002 - 05:41 UTC
      • Neither 'yes' nor 'no', quite the opposite - aurino - April 15, 2002 - 14:09 UTC
        • Well, my answer is 'no' - definite, unequivocal 'no' - harvey1 - April 15, 2002 - 14:24 UTC
          • Sure it is - aurino - April 15, 2002 - 14:29 UTC
            • I think he has actually said "No"! - doctordick - April 15, 2002 - 17:52 UTC
              • Clarify - harvey1 - April 15, 2002 - 19:45 UTC
              • He always does - aurino - April 15, 2002 - 20:09 UTC
                • I'm curious - harvey1 - April 15, 2002 - 20:18 UTC
        • And my point is...? - aurino - April 15, 2002 - 14:28 UTC