Are Unicorns Greater Than Dragons?

By -
I can prove that they are. Look at the following:


The UNIX sort command is a formal system, and it orders things based on the '>' symbol. And when it compared unicorns and dragons, unicorns turned out to be greater than dragons!

Of course this is silly nonsense. To determine whether unicorns really are greater than dragons one would first have to determine if unicorns and dragons really exist. Then one has to determine how one is going to test for "greater than," in reality.

As silly as claiming that because another formal system (ZFC) treats the formal symbols ℵ0, 2, ^, and > so that:

2ℵ0 > ℵ0

makes a true statement in that formal system, as meaning that some infinities really are bigger than other infinities.

To determine if there really are infinities bigger than other infinities, one first would have to determine if, in reality (and not just in some formal system), there really is anything infinite. Then one would have to determine that, in reality there really is more than one such thing. Than one would have to determine a means, in reality, of comparing at least two of them to see which is bigger.

UPDATE: And note, I am not criticizing these formal systems. They are fine, if recognized for what they are. The UNIX sort command is a great thing! It just can't be used to prove that, in reality, unicorns are greater than dragons!

Comments

  1. Andy12:51 PM

    Yes. I'd been mulling over your original post for a while, and came to this very conclusion last night.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more