Hi Paul,

>>>So, I am still a Platonist. I think there are two worlds, the describable and the indescribable.>I say "discovering" because that's the way it seems to happen. It's just like discovering the varieties of chess games that can be played once the rules are laid down. Those chess games really didn't exist anywhere before the game was invented, and similarly, the theorem didn't really exist anywhere prior either. So 'discovery' is probably not an appropriate word, but it is customary.>H: "To say 'usefulness' is to beg the question. Why is it useful is the question." P:
I tried to explain why it is useful when I said, " At our scale, there are many things whose noticeable identity persists long enough for us to count them." Science produces its best (or only) results when it can define metrics and make measurements in order to describe things in numbers. This can only be done for things that stay the same long enough for us to measure them and report on the measurement. Fortunately for us, there are many such things in our world and that is why the method has been so useful.>As you know, Harv, I have a difficult time responding to any discussion of "isms" simply because I don't know what they mean. How about a deal: You commit to mastering the math necessary to understand Dick's paper, and I'll commit to mastering the meaning of all these "isms" so that I can discuss them with you. Deal?

• Don't worry; we are all puzzled. - paulm - August 28, 2001 - 15:34 UTC
  • So you are not a platonist - harvey1 - August 28, 2001 - 17:46 UTC