Thread View: aus.science
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by DonH
Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:38
Are "sets" relevant to science?
Author: DonH
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:38
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:38
17 lines
2182 bytes
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