>>93
Everything is subjective.
Not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean, but if you insist...
In which way they were "intuitive"? How can the property of being "unordered" be intuitive?
Unordered just means you don't care about ordering. Imagine you have a list of items and you only test if an item is in the list and don't care about the order of the items on the list.
They are just hacks, whose sole purpose is to patch their naive theory and hide problems under the carpet.
I'm not so sure. The axioms of ZFs were a bit unnatural, but the iterative version does make sense to me.
Using senses? Decomposition should always terminate into sensible physical terms.
For a subjective idealist, you sure use the term 'physical' a lot. Physical is just an indexical property, and saying that "only this" exists is a stronger and more complex belief than "this" exists. Some would even argue that using that name is not too different from calling it magic.
>>94
I'm not talking about whatever current laws of physics we have found by induction. I'm talking about whatever the universal law is (which we might have a chance of discovering at the end of our inductive process), regardless of our knowledge of it - we can observe that the world behaves by precise laws, even if we don't know all their exact specifics (for now).
Newtonian physics is correct given the right context, but not correct in more extended contextss.
Same goes for quantum mechanics and general relativity. The 2 of them aren't even compatible in their current form and finding a way to reconcile them is a challenge for theoretical physics.
>>95
Just like the belief in any deity wont make it suddenly appear.
Of course. However, nobody is having you work with infinity directly, only that you at least not place a particular bound on naturals, otherwise you are severly limited about what you can talk about or think about.
Still, religious fanatics are a danger to society.
Popular religions are silly and some of them can lead to bad behavior. However, any belief which cannot be directly proven is of "religious" nature. There are many such beliefs which can be justified, even if not directly proven, in the end, you have to bet on some things being true or false, otherwise you can't even talk about anything at all, or make any choices. You do know that a system without any axioms, or one where all the valid sentences are theorems is an inconsistent one? It cannot talk about anything at all and can prove any falsity. You have to draw a line somewhere and have some initial assumptions - that's what "religion" actually is. You're free to use your best reasoning and meta techniques to pick whatever theory has the best chance of being true - that's what science is about. Saying that "religion" is bad is only because most people have very nonsensical and irrational religious beliefs. To many regular people the term just means anti-epistemology, where they will gobble up anything they hear as truth, but that's not what I'm talking about. The moment you realize that you must hold some (at least tentative) beliefs to be able to do anything or reason about anything, that's mostly "religion", even if those beliefs are perfectly rational. I could even argue that one should be very careful about what beliefs they have and understand how they test, verify or falsify them.