2 ms·
I think you misunderstood what I said and may have demonstrated a little ignorance at the same time. Hilbert's axioms are axioms for Euclidean geometry, like Ta
by guerrilla 4y ago
I think you misunderstood what I said and may have demonstrated a little ignorance at the same time. Hilbert's axioms are axioms for Euclidean geometry, like Tarski's and Birkhoff's.
> That which I observe exists
This isn't even close to what empiricism is. You named a (very poor) ontological principle. Empiricism is a set of epistemological principles.
- ouid 4y agoFirst point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you.
- guerrilla 4y ago> First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. The point was that the axioms we used changed. Read further back up the thread. You're off track. > Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you. No, please take an introduction to philosophy. Empericism is an epistemology, it has nothing to do with what exists which is an ontology. Ffs open Wikipedia or something. This is embarrassing Dunning-Kruger effect here.