Re: [jboske] Substance vs Bit of Substance

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la nitcion cusku di'e

> The bits of substance that I've been talking about (anything from "the
> top quarter of" to {pi ro}) are, I would claim, extensionally defined
> notions of substances.

I agree. You're not really talking about Substance as such but
a quantifiable derivation ("bits of substance"). That bits
can physically contain or overlap other bits is not really
relevant to their quantifiability. Quantifiablility is not
the same as countability.

> I think right now numbers are atomic (qua platonic ideals), and
> division is not a legitimate instantiation of ve memzilfendi. But even
> if I'm wrong, we can think of a number as being the substance of all
> smaller numbers that add up to it. That is one way to think about a
> number; it's just a nightmarishly spaced out one. :-)

Be careful with zero there. Is it the only atom among the reals?

Real numbers are quantifiable: you can talk of "each real number",
"no real number", "at least one real number", "not all real
numbers". That the cardinality of the set is aleph-one does not
make them into Substance. If you can single out the members of
the set then you can quantify over that set, whatever the
cardinality.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail