〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

Interesting point.. and one that is indeed difficult to parlay with via Twitter

I’m curious what your answer is as a finitist to Zeno’s Paradox?

At a certain level we can't subdivide the universe further. Im comfortable with the universe happening in discrete steps. I'm not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination but that seems a natural conclusion to me.

But shouldn’t finitism, if it’s truly the case, what that smallest subdivision is? But this is s testable hypotheses, and to me seems to miss the point that mathematics truly is a human construct, and not subject to experiment

The ontology of pure reason cannot be a function of empirics

I'm not sure any reason can be separated from observation and expiramentation. What is reason if not a tool for making predications?

I agree, but I fear we may be talking last one another with respect to definitions

Ultimately it is a difference in a theory of proof. If I couldn't prove all these facts about triangles and Tangents without infinite notions I'd be more receptive, but at this point I don't see infinity as crucial, considering the sacrifices I must make to use it.