![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
#21 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
|
Quote:
joe |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
best, Peter Kirby |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Darn hard to imagine. It's not like 'imagine a circle'. I would bet that nobody has ever seen a circle. We've seen things that look pretty close, but I doubt that anybody's ever drawn a perfect one. Can you imagine n-dimensional space, for n=7, for exampe? Does it have no meaning because you can't imagine it? -denise |
|
|
|
#26 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Why does being able to write something symbolically via mathematics make it more 'imaginable'? Is 'imaginability' a function of the number of ways that something can be represented? |
|
|
|
#28 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
Sure, but it's probably not even relevant. I can't even really imagine good-old 3-dimensional space. I don't consider it a "thing," so I don't think it matters. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
#30 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|