Chav,
I am not sure that I am prepared to say that I can flow logically from the first question to that wichever is better in this thread but I noticed something in your last post that I hoped I could continue to comment in that vein on. You were quoting about the "detection" of a specific 'number'and then in the name of Opticks you assert that a *spectrometer* "detects" color. Well, that is a question...Without A BELIEF in Boscovich's THEORY OF NATURAL HISTORY written in the generation succeeding Newton I would have said ABSOLUTELY that it does not. Simply reading Wittgenstein can confuse one about how one is to TALK subjectively about what Gothe thought so seriously if one DOES NOT have any idea of what a fit of easy transmission or reflection is (and I do not COUNT the modern attempts to claim that quantum mechancis had this insight but if you wish to call me on this account of history it IS something I can or could research) then it only MEASURES the colour provided one interprets the gauge pointer such just as a caliper really doesnt measure the Snout-Vent length LENGTH of a salamander unless one assumes that the critter could care less for what is moving in a striaght line continues to do so (which is also a part of Boscovich's "theory").
As a clear headed undergraduate I could constanly be found asking profeesors at Cornell HOW DO YOU COUNT an organism, because if one does not know how to do this than one can not reliably be certain that the forms attributed to bio-change speciation that were divided in the ledger of not finding transitional forms really contributed to any chi square signifianctly or were obsfuscated by the process of statistical testing itself. I was never answered. I went on to try to do this myself and got the boot. So there was never any even bold ability to "detect" the count in the database nor was there concern about the means I proposed to do it and yet it was known that how one "encodes" polymorphic characters WAS an issue. But THIS is a different question and already implied a usable BASE for doing the association with the numbers and was really the reason that I was seen as a hostile pain in the neck. I was not.
Boscovich based his theory on a rest with Newton's conspiring motions and decidee that he would accept (without a cusp) infinite componenability but not infintie divisibility but if one had gone to any math dept and wanted to know what kinds of accounting practices were available for the evolutionist to count on the kinds of organisms in any natural history collection (regardless of if one wanted to use the database to DO catastrophe theory or not...)then one would be aware that there were at least on that black board finite as well as inifinte numbers available. I find NO theoretical difficulty though I would not know how to be a detection machine other than so far yours or my mind to find these attachments in setting the manifold of continuity that the better question bends to assert that Boscovich's breach IS a Cantor actual infinite and enable population genetics in nature to detect this but to DO this I would NOT be able to say as that the spectrometer detects colour. It did not. It dected something we call color and something we accept in the process of naming the same but I did not have to name the organism do to similarliry in theory with an answer evolutionists have been faced with but prefered to even ingore the organic background to the asking of the same question. I hope this helps and yet I have NOt said anything about but those few bold strokes you made in one place.
™ Version 4.2
