🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug27.143116.16970@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
>Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
>Date: 27 Aug 92 14:31:16 GMT

>In <1992Aug26.095740.17255@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
>amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:

>>it's not at
>>all clear that philosophical problems are amenable to scientific
>>solutions.  Having said that, one of the reasons I'm using set theory in
>>metaphysics is to try to bring some objectivity into the field.

>Wouldn't it be more useful to bring some metaphysics into set theory?

>As an example of a metaphysical question: what do people mean when they
>talk about "universes of sets", when by "universes" they mean models of
>ZFC, and by "models" they mean certain sets? It would be all right if,
>as well as describing these "universes" with such formality, these
>theorists gave equally rigorous (if not equally formal!) attention to
>the naive and obvious question of which reasonings are valid, and which
>not, when applied to the (one) Universe within which these so-called
>"universes" are so casually (IMHO) presumed to exist - and which is
>presumably also the same familiar Universe in which you and I and
>Dan Quayle (perhaps) exist.

>Have I just not been reading the right books? If this is a "frequently
>asked question", it's certainly not a frequently answered one; so a
>careful reply is unlikely to be a waste of bandwidth. If anyone can
>answer it, I'll be grateful; and if anyone can answer it *objectively*,
>I'll fall off my chair in surprise.

>Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
>Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5248   
>Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  |
>End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | My other .sig is witty.
>--
>Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
>Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5248   
>Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  |
>End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | My other .sig is witty.

I would like to know what you count as subjective philosophizing to which 
the recommended *objective* approach is to be constrasted? I have always 
thought most thinking contains both depending on the subject matter. Please 
clarify.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------