🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

1 total messages Started by DonH Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:38
Are "sets" relevant to science?
#898
Author: DonH
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:38
17 lines
2182 bytes
In this contention, a "set" is defined as a group of heterogeneous objects, 
as distinct from a "class" where the objects are linked by one or more 
common factors.
   If science is handed a group of miscellaneous facts, it immediately tries 
to find order among them.  Whence, "classification".  A "set" is of no 
relevance if "order" cannot be found.
   Indeed, in Classical Logic, Definition and Classification precede all 
else.
   Of course, Nature does tend to be shambolic, and Chaos abounds.
   It is we Humans who like things neat and tidy.  But even Causality is 
Classifiable.
   Can we derive a Power Set from four sets : Bowl of Fruit, Zoo, Family, 
and Rubbish Dump?
   Only if we keep the groups separate, as otherwise, the fruit may be 
eaten, the animals (human and non-human) kill and eat each other; and all we 
have left is the Rubbish Dump.  And that hardly empowers anyone; especially 
if no one exists to make any use of it. 
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads