Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-29-2003, 07:54 PM | #21 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
06-29-2003, 07:57 PM | #22 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
|
Quote:
joe |
|
06-29-2003, 08:43 PM | #23 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
best, Peter Kirby |
|
06-29-2003, 08:57 PM | #24 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
06-30-2003, 06:44 PM | #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 |
|
06-30-2003, 07:55 PM | #26 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
07-01-2003, 04:28 AM | #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? |
|
07-01-2003, 10:39 AM | #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:
|
||
07-01-2003, 11:12 AM | #29 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
07-01-2003, 12:23 PM | #30 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|