According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "Aristotle was the first genuine scientist in history. ... Every scientist is in his debt."[citation needed]

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I just don't see hard lines between philosophy and science. You start out just thinking about something and you can proceed to some formal theory while imagining ways to test it.

Don't be daft.

How in principle do you propose that we measure the 'importance' of my philosophy?

Seriously.

1 divided by 6,000,000,000
give or take

Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

kennyc wrote:

jamest wrote:

Boyle wrote:

jamest wrote:There is no scientific means of measuring importance, is why.

I think it's more that no one has thought it necessary to measure.

Not at all. Importance is not a physical property of anything. That's [simply/wholly] why you cannot measure it [from a scientific perspective]. No more discussion is required.

Of course importance associated with a thing is measurable. But it depends on the (any)thing and the context. Easily measured if you care to.

kennyc wrote:Yeah, like you need religion to disprove religion....

U mad, bro?

jamest wrote:Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

xrayzed wrote:

jamest wrote:Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

Sure it can. For example one divided by two = 1/2.

Were you thinking of division by zero being undefined?

VazScep wrote:

xrayzed wrote:

jamest wrote:Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

Sure it can. For example one divided by two = 1/2.

Were you thinking of division by zero being undefined?

Metaphysically, one cannot be divided. That you can use your new-fangled mathematics to write 1/2 and call it a "half" is irrelevant, since mathematics is metaphysically irrelevant.

kennyc wrote:

jamest wrote: The base concepts maths grounds itself upon - one, zero, infinity, etc. - are certainly of interest to metaphysicists, but what mathematicians have to say about them is of no relevance to the metaphysicist. The mathematician - supposing he/she has an interest in metaphysics - must first prove that their conceptualisation of any given notion is metaphysically rational, prior to blinding us with their seemingly complex symbols.

VazScep wrote:

kennyc wrote:

jamest wrote: The base concepts maths grounds itself upon - one, zero, infinity, etc. - are certainly of interest to metaphysicists, but what mathematicians have to say about them is of no relevance to the metaphysicist. The mathematician - supposing he/she has an interest in metaphysics - must first prove that their conceptualisation of any given notion is metaphysically rational, prior to blinding us with their seemingly complex symbols.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

VazScep wrote:

kennyc wrote:

jamest wrote: The base concepts maths grounds itself upon - one, zero, infinity, etc. - are certainly of interest to metaphysicists, but what mathematicians have to say about them is of no relevance to the metaphysicist. The mathematician - supposing he/she has an interest in metaphysics - must first prove that their conceptualisation of any given notion is metaphysically rational, prior to blinding us with their seemingly complex symbols.

VazScep wrote:

xrayzed wrote:

jamest wrote:Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

Sure it can. For example one divided by two = 1/2.

Were you thinking of division by zero being undefined?

Metaphysically, one cannot be divided. That you can use your new-fangled mathematics to write 1/2 and call it a "half" is irrelevant, since mathematics is metaphysically irrelevant.

xrayzed wrote:

VazScep wrote:

xrayzed wrote:

jamest wrote:Te irony is that '1' cannot be divided. Go figure.

Sure it can. For example one divided by two = 1/2.

Were you thinking of division by zero being undefined?

Metaphysically, one cannot be divided. That you can use your new-fangled mathematics to write 1/2 and call it a "half" is irrelevant, since mathematics is metaphysically irrelevant.

Illuminating.

kennyc wrote:

xrayzed wrote:

VazScep wrote:

xrayzed wrote:
Sure it can. For example one divided by two = 1/2.

Were you thinking of division by zero being undefined?

Metaphysically, one cannot be divided. That you can use your new-fangled mathematics to write 1/2 and call it a "half" is irrelevant, since mathematics is metaphysically irrelevant.

Illuminating.

Enlightening even.

xrayzed wrote:Two metaphysicians discuss the Indivisibility of the One over lunch, and one goes hungry, because they only had one sandwich.

jamest wrote:There is no scientific means of measuring importance, is why.

SpeedOfSound wrote:If it ain't science it don't exist.

ughaibu wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:If it ain't science it don't exist.

Nobody can rationally hold that position. So, I reckon there are three possibilities: 1. the above is the conclusion of an argument and that argument is refuted by reductio ad absurdum, 2. the above is the confused ramblings generated by having no understanding of the issue, 3. the above is outright and intentionally posted bollocks, either a joke or a lie.