--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote: > > In mathematics one never wants to come up with any linkage to the > real. ? > So, no, there isn't any problem similar to dualism. Mathematics > has to do with idealized things. We can have perfect knowledge > about them precisely because they are idealized. Mathematics is > not concerned with the real. That's an extreme platonistic interpretation. Any formalist interpretation, that mathematics deals with symbols, I can better express in physicalist, algorithmic terms. > > Because you are not using the word "symbol" for that which > > symbolizes, you are using the term "symbol" for any mark which > > may become a symbol, and that is the whole point. > > No, I am not using "symbol" for any kind of mark. Then you are making up an entirely new usage for the word, and I have no idea at all what you are trying to say. Josh Group Home Page: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html Group Discussion Board: http://seanwilson.org/forum/ Google Archive: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs FreeList Archive: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs FreeList for September: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009 FreeList for August: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/08-2009 Group Creator's Page: http://seanwilson.org/ Today's Messages: http://alturl.com/whcf Messages From Last 3 Days: http://alturl.com/d9vz This Week's Messages: http://alturl.com/yeza Yahoo Archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/