Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Tue, 16 May 95 00:13:30 CST
In article <5lqJklwUcsB@khms.westfalen.de> email@example.com (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> Panopticon@oubliette.COM wrote on 08.05.95 in <Admin.0x0v@oubliette.COM>:
> > nothing. The point was only that zero, as a symbol, MUST be an intellectual
> > concept. The original post insinuated that it was not. Now, at this point,
_MY_ point was only that.....MUST be an intellectual concept. To symbolize
an abstract or a concrete thought the object must be an intellectual
A log is a concept. It may have physical reality, but then so does that
which zero represents. Zero does not just happen in the mind.
This is a part of the synthetic-analytic argument, and it has been going on
for centuries. We will not likely come to agreement here, on the internet.
I will endlessly argue that there is only one reality, and that all
thoughts are necessarily intellectual concepts, and that even physical
objects are intellectual concepts as they are represented in our noggins,
and the idea of zero is no less real than "nothing" or any other object.
> No. The _original_ claim was that "zero" was only an intellectual concept,
> not "zero, as a symbol". Look it up.
> Of course the symbol zero is such a concept. What it represents, however,
> is not _only_ a concept. And the word "zero" has been used for both
> throughout the history.
Wait! I am wrong. I admit it! I am completely wrong. Oops! Sorry!
Gosh-dang.....and here I thought that I was simply making an observation to
prevent the original poster, to whom I was responding, from making the
unreasonable argument that some concepts are more concrete than others!
Silly me. I am sorry that I even tried to point this error out. now I
realize, after so many folks just insisting that I am wrong about what they
still haven't understood I was or was not saying....I am wrong for ever
posting so sloppy of a _simple_ set of statements in contradiction to that
post. F&^%$#g excuse me! You win. I'm wrong.
Can we at least agree on this, or is somebody now going to tell me that I
have been directing all of my last at someone else, trying to say that they
are wrong, whereas I will then see email postings which state that I should
not "pick" on this "other" person?
I have been so absolutely misinterpreted upon this thread, that it makes me
just want to puke!
I once reviewed all of the posts from UWM's usenet backlog, and I still have
not been refuted for what _I_ said. I have been trashed for every possible
misinterpretation possible, but never for the simple little point in which
I criticized someone's incongruency in handling conceptual heirarchies.
A concrete is no more concrete in comparison to an abstraction. They are
_both_ intellectual concepts. To state that, "yes, but one is observable,"
and that the other is not, does NOT make the one we believe that we cannot
observe any less real. (even though zero is an observable object.) The
original poster attempted to raise the value of the concrete by claiming
that zero, as an intellectual concept, was of lesser value, being that it
was not a concrete, but a mere mental abstraction.
As I have said before, "This is absurd!"
If you would like, and if it is not too late, I will reproduce the entire
sequence of exchangges which I have experienced, posted, and received on
this silly little subject.
-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: