Anon.  wrote:

> John Edser wrote:
> > G:-
> > Yes, I do realise this.  I, however, do not believe Darwin or many
> > others since have given a _complete_ definition of organism as a
> > physical object.  Thom even tried, but in many respects still failed.
> > 
> > JE:-
> > The organism concept has never been formalised.
> > Like the number "1" within mathematics, the organism
> > assumption is just taken for granted as "obvious",
> > it is a very basic inductive assumption. Without
> > it, a testable science of biology could not exist.
> > 
> I thought someone had worked out how to define 1 (and all the other 
> integers).  I only mention this because, if memory serves, he defined
> the numbers in terms of nested (empty) sets.
> 
It was Russell, I believe, with Whitehead, in the Principia Mathematica,
who defined numbers in terms of the number one, and successors sets to
one. I forget who it was who pointed out one could use the null set as
the foundation.

-- 
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/17/03 6:27:34 AM