>>193
ultra finitist in lisp sympta guy
I'm not ultrafinitist.
What is your opinion on the natural numbers?
Haven't seen them.
How do you resolve always being able to add one to a number?
What is "always"?
>>191
This has nothing to do with God. A limitative result could show for example "no theory of physics may have these and these properties", this result would be useful as it would lead to narrowing down on what the theories can be. The goal is to improve one's accuracy and negative results do that quite well. As for God, I already said, it's too undefined or too personally defined, it's not even worth talking about it scientifically, unless you give a particular definition.
You can define "God" as anything you cant comprehend/sense. That way God is equivalent to Infinity/incompletness, which scientists care about.
There are precise definitions of those terms formally and mathematically, but there is also the more common sense meaning of those terms.
Common
sense meaning has nothing to do with math. It's limited to our senses.
For example about induction: someone observes that a certain pattern is always followed by another - such as dropping a metal crate will cause a sound when the crate hits the floor.
When it's done in local, controlled and well understood environment. For example, crate wont cause sound, if it's dropped from outer space into the Sun.
you seem to be hostile to reading papers, I'm not going to waste more of my time locating copies of old papers I've read.
I cant understand them, because they are full of these cryptic "sets", together with mysterious "for all" and "there exist" wordings, buried under some ugly curly brace infix syntax, which isn't even context-free.
a learned skill when talking about formal versions.
Just like reciting Torah is a learned skill for a rabbi.
Because you don't frame your theories about reality in math. Too bad most of your theories don't actually give any predictions whatsoever
Wait! What are "my theories"? I do happen to agree with prof. Norman Wildberger on his rational-trigonometry, but he happen to demonstrate that geometry can be done without referencing "Infinity".
in this particular novel, he doesn't touch any set theoretic notions. He even entertains an ultrafinitistic view as a possible theory to explain one important event in the book, so you might like it
Author just recites what had been said already by George Berkeley a few centuries ago?
Except most scientific results are open and free (leaving aside silly paywalls).
If Einstein's theory contains errors, then it could be a work of art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartography#Cartographic_errors
you insist on using ultrafinitism
You should note, that I'm not an "ultrafinitist", I'm "subjective idealist". These terms are different, like "Atheist" vs "Agnostic"
All within your define bound, it's a finite "all".
Then there is nothing that will allow us to look "outside" the bound.
Not dogma, but I look at it like this, you have an established and well-verified physical theory.
Some time ago Newtonian Physics was a "well-verified physical theory" and it definitely confirmed ability to devide space into "infinitesimals".
that's unavoidable in most non-trivial theories.
The good thing is that "non-trivial theories" are avoidable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor