ElRengo · 70-79, M
The main problem with his quote (a more contemporary mathematic would had known better) is that there is not one infinite but multiple of even different "sizes".
And some of those infinites are "build" differently (not the same of the ones of naturals and integers than the one of reals just to give an example).
So the association is at least problematic.
Besides that, there is no such a thing as a material infinite.
The concept belongs to math if properly defined. Outside it is an almost literarian image.
And as mathematicians know, Math haves not ontological commitment (as neither logic as part of it).
I do not reject the poetry of the posted quote.
But even a genius can say nonsense.
Like the probabilistic approach by Pascal on why is "profitable" to believe.
And some of those infinites are "build" differently (not the same of the ones of naturals and integers than the one of reals just to give an example).
So the association is at least problematic.
Besides that, there is no such a thing as a material infinite.
The concept belongs to math if properly defined. Outside it is an almost literarian image.
And as mathematicians know, Math haves not ontological commitment (as neither logic as part of it).
I do not reject the poetry of the posted quote.
But even a genius can say nonsense.
Like the probabilistic approach by Pascal on why is "profitable" to believe.
HoraceGreenley · 61-69, M
