Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]

Am 26.03.2025 um 01:44 schrieb Moebius:

Am 26.03.2025 um 01:14 schrieb Moebius:

Am 26.03.2025 um 01:06 schrieb Moebius:

Am 26.03.2025 um 00:39 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

>

What everybody else refers to as infinte, you seem to want to call
"potentially infinite".

>
Actually, it's rather the other way round. WM has a tendency to call things "potentially infinite" which everyone else would call "finite".

>
It seems that he recently recognised this himself, leading to the absurd
phrase
>
                    potentially (in-)finite <so-and-so>  (WM)
>
<facepalm>
>
(You won't find such a the notion ANYWHERE ... else.)

 "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." (Brandolini's law, bullshit asymmetry principle)

"In 1845, Frédéric Bastiat expressed an early notion of the law:
We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete [or nonsense --moebius], we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations.
— Economic Sophisms, First Series (1845)
Prior to Brandolini's definition, Italian blogger Uriel Fanelli and researcher Jonathan Koomey, creator of Koomey's law, also shared thoughts aligning with the bullshit asymmetry principle. Fanelli stated:
"An idiot can create more bullshit than you could ever hope to refute",
when generally translated in Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World."
.
.
.