in article , Rich Wilson at
wrote on 3/12/06 9:50 PM:


"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Rich Wilson at
wrote on 3/12/06 9:23 PM:


"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , Rich Wilson at
wrote on 3/12/06 9:14 PM:


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 00:12:55 GMT, "Rich Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...
Which, btw, is exactly the same situation as those who don't think i
exists.

It doesn't. But then, "numbers" don't exist in any meaningful sense.

If you go back and look at the context that's been removed you'll see
that I said it's as 'real' as the 'real' numbers are. The point is
it's 'reality' is conceptually no different regardless of what common
conceptualization, or lack thereof, you now wish to obscure the
matter with.

I wasn't disputing your argument! Yes, i is as real as any other
number.

You can
have, say, five apples, but you can't just have five. It's just an
idea.

Ideas 'exist'. They must since you apparently have one

I have an idea of, say, a machine that turns lard into banknotes. That
doesn't mean it exists. Equally, I have an idea of the number "five".
The
idea exists, the number doesn't necessarily exist.


Yes, but the idea of numbers is a priori; the lard converter is not.

I'm not familiar with the latin phrase and the Wikipedia definition ain't
helping... care to explain your argument in English?

This link should do it:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.co...l_APriori.html

OK... so "a priori" knowledge is knowledge that has no reference to
reality... i.e. knowledge about things that don't exist.

My understanding of a priori as it applies to math is that we have a concept
of numbers that seem to be beyond argument, but on closer inspection, is
actually based upon faith. We can't really "prove" the number 5, for
example, but we operate on the assumption that "5" is true. As an article
of faith, perhaps it is "more empirical" (if such a non-sequitur can be used
to describe something that is based upon "faith") than, say, the imaginary
concept of a lard converter. We don't really depend upon concept of a lard
converter for understanding other concepts as we do numbers.

It is a bit of an abstract and subtle distinction.

Perhaps a philosopher or professional parser such as Mr. Byrnes can correct
me or shed more light on the distinction, if indeed there is one?

;-)

Jon