attempt to prove the existence of the natural numbers while explicitly dismissing the relevance of what sense he’s using “existence” to mean!
use formal definitions to make claims about the informal meanings of the terms!
claim that Peano arithmetic exists “because you can see the marks on paper” (guess it’s not a platonic object anymore...)!
(Sorry, XiXiDu, I’ll reply to you on his blog if my posting privileges stay up long enough … for now, I would agree with what you said, but am not making that point in the discussion.)
Grab the popcorn! Landsburg and I go at it again! (See also Previous Landsburg LW flamewar.)
This time, you get to see Landsburg:
attempt to prove the existence of the natural numbers while explicitly dismissing the relevance of what sense he’s using “existence” to mean!
use formal definitions to make claims about the informal meanings of the terms!
claim that Peano arithmetic exists “because you can see the marks on paper” (guess it’s not a platonic object anymore...)!
(Sorry, XiXiDu, I’ll reply to you on his blog if my posting privileges stay up long enough … for now, I would agree with what you said, but am not making that point in the discussion.)
Wow, a debate where the most reasonable-sounding person is a sysop of Conservapedia. :)
Who?
Roger Schlafly. Or Roger Schlafly, if you prefer that. His blog is Singular Values. His whole family is full of very interesting people.
I always find these entertaining, though I begin to despair of human nature after a while. Thanks for letting me watch.