3 ms·

So what you're trying to say is that he has infinite apples?

• paganel 3y ago
  Going by my (bad) analogy, in theory, yes, that is what that would mean. More to the point, if we're not able to decide whenever it is exactly that an apple stops being an apple once we start eating it that could mean that the apple-ness of said apple has big chances of remaining intact (together with the underlying apple) irrespective of us eating it fully, and hence (theoretically) giving us an infinite supply of apples (or access to apple-ness, to be more exact). But, going back to the Old Greeks, this is a very old question that we haven't been able to fully solve, I honestly think we'll never be able to solve it. Aristotle's focus on categories and especially his tertium non datur thing has allowed us to solve some practical problems (for example by allowing us to build a world that is based on techne, which among other things has allowed us to have this conversation here on the internet), but the bigger and more philosophical question of One vs. Infinity and everything in between remains un-solved. Later edit: On Cantor vs. Aristotle, from here [1] > Thus Cantor believed that Aristotle was quite mistaken in his analysis of the infinite, and that his authority was exceedingly detrimental When it comes to the philosophy of mathematics and to philosophy itself I'm with Cantor on this. Could be that mainstream mathematics itself could benefit were we to ditch Aristotle and fully embrace Cantor, but I'm not a mathematician nor smart enough to say if that's in the realm of the possible. [1] https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Cantor/Cantor.html https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Canto...