Idk I only have material evidence for finite processes. Seems to me that infinite things are the platonic ones.
-
-
Replying to @Abraximus1729 @litgenstein
But they very fact you’re defining an equivalence relation between physical objects and mathematical objects is itself the planotism I’m talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @litgenstein
I’m saying all my mathematical objects are physical.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Abraximus1729 @litgenstein
Hype is the number 2 physical? (You cannot refer time objects in your answer)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @litgenstein
2 is physical as much as temperature is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Abraximus1729 @litgenstein
But answer it directly not rhetorically
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @litgenstein
Here’s a demonstration of 2 of my fingers and my 2 eyes. It’s as much as a physical distinction as my body temperature is.pic.twitter.com/bALk3bWipE
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @litgenstein
Can anything be meaningfully separated from the medium that supports it? As a materialist, I am satisfied by my construction of 2. Same reasoning applies to the nonexistance of 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 as anything beyond an expression.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Abraximus1729 @InertialObservr
This is going to be a different concept of number than what’s used in Phil math btw
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @litgenstein @Abraximus1729
oh, great ..
8:25 PM - 28 Sep 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.