🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep12.190822.90079@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> kevin@vaxc.cc.
monash.edu.au writes:

   >There are no non-trivial a-priori statements that can be made about the 
   >real world.

  A clarification has reached me! "a priori statement" should be
understood as "a priori true statement". I try again.

   >Here, a-priori and trivial are a bit vague, but I'll take a-priori as
   >intuitively understood by a philospher, and trivial as understood by a 
   >mathematician.

  These explanations are hardly sufficient. "A priori" usually means
"independent of, or prior to, experience", but this leaves a lot of
leeway. Whose experience? All experience after birth? For example,
does my conviction that I cannot eat the moon stem from experience,
and if so, which experience?

  Also, what does "the real world" include? The world of physics?
The world of subjective experience? The world of mathematics? One
might (a priori) suspect that you are only interested in the
world of mathematics, since it is stipulated that "trivial" means
trivial as understood by a mathematician. Why a mathematician,
if you are not talking about the real world of mathematics?