Disproving Stefan Eins

SCIENCE 057CIITYH 008 CIITYH 011 blue-stfans DSC02708DSC02705SCIENCE 049SCIENCE 053

Stefan Eins has remarked he employs “science” in his work. Other artists have scoffed. I can not prove this is the case, because there is no such animal as Scientific Proof. One can only attempt to, Disprove, because there may be Proof that has not yet arrived.” I believe Stefan has opened a new door, entered into a new field, made a runway for the arrival of  New Proof. We must learn to look. Who would suspect a slab of concrete was the center of so much action.

Click on images to enlarge.

While the phrase “scientific proof” is often used in the popular media,[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that “In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,”

Today I went to the Springfield Library to return books I had renewed twice. I have been recovering from an operation and saw a window of opportunity, open, and I went for it. I parked my truck next to the huge slab of concrete where upon was held a chalk festival. I started to walk on, when I stopped in my tracks, and turned.

“Are those rain puddles?”

“The physics of liquid formation are the physics of biology,” he said

For some reason, I brought my camera. A voice told me to. I walked on to the concrete surface – and gasped! I was surrounded by Land Clouds. They were grazing – like sheep. I began to snaps photos. The TIMING had to be right. The rain came in the night. The sun rises in the morning and dries most of the concrete surface. The sun is coming in and out of the right amount of clouds in the sky. The artist, arrives. The observer, is here. The awareness I received from my friend, is…….working? What is working? I considered the science in Mirrors. Then I saw the church steeple. Is this God, Mother Nature, or, Pure Science – at work. Are these God’s random canvases that he lay down so he can execute his Skyscapes – with upside down Trees? To the Creator-Artist, they are right side up!

I had suggested in other blogs, Stefan had somehow shown up at the chalk fest, and did his thing. In an e-mail he said her might show up.

“Who knows?”

Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role.[6] In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory

“This is the ‘Monkey Donkey’ thing,” he said. “It’s monkey rides donkey. Totally random. That in itself is totally amazing. I did this and this happened. This is miraculous to me.”

Is Stefan, God, or Baal? Like the movie ‘The Field of Dreams’ Mr.Eins loves this slab of concrete – and is able to get to it by means of “Another Dimension”‘ But, is this science?

I was totally emersed in thought. If I was deep in the woods, I could not be more alone. I took three photographs of the same pool, and noticed something. Is that a comet? A Jet? A UFO?

Then, they came, these beautiful people. They dispersed onto the concrete canvas. Some had pieces of paper.

“What the hell?”


On walls and window sills, and tucked into neat stacks, are pieces that deal with “the physics of liquid formation,” as he calls some of his earlier work. The pieces were influenced by his long association with leading graffiti artists at Fashion Moda.

He realized that the spots left by quick spray bursts looked lifelike. One resembles a group of tiny, fluorescent pink horseshoe crabs. In another piece, he let green paint flow into white, resulting in a latticework resembling moss.

“The physics of liquid formation are the physics of biology,” he said. “This is a liquid formation. But it is also moss. Same thing. That is why I became an artist, to investigate and find new bounds of knowledge.”

He goes to the narrow hallway and hauls out a slab of plywood onto which he had let brown paint flow.

“This is the ‘Monkey Donkey’ thing,” he said. “It’s monkey rides donkey. Totally random. That in itself is totally amazing. I did this and this happened. This is miraculous to me.”


In this video we have a The New Genesis and prophecy of what is yet to be. What I call amebas, are puddles of water that contains the Life Forms of the Mind. From the remains of a chalk drawing a new dimension is overlayed on a reflecting pond.

What is truly extraordinary, is this series of photos. While taking the third shot, I notice a white streak. I lift my camera skyward and take a clear shot. What is that? Is it a bird? A plane? Or a………Super Moda!

I go to see what these students are placing on the ground. They are clear domes that look like flying saucers. They have landed on my private world. They are taking MEASUREMENTS which key to Scientific Experiments. Tonight there’s going to be a meteor shower. One usually looks up to spot a UFO. But, thanks to Stefan, I learned to see things in a different and new way. For the first time in thirty years, I consider myself an artist. I am going to enter the images I captured in a show. I asked Stefan to enter this blog in his show. http://www.o-t-h-e-r-dimensions.info/

“Houston, the Eagle has landed!”


Our Mars Machines had a close encounter with a comet that is seen at 5:00 o clock in a green glow.

“Comet Siding Spring (C/2013 A1) is seen near Mars (the bright object) as a bluish-green orb at the center in this view of the comet’s extremely close flyby of the Red Planet on Oct. 19, 2014. This image was captured by astronomer Nick Howes and colleagues using telescopes at the Siding Spring Observatory.”

What are the odds that it all came together? These students take a measurement once a month, weather permitting. Humans have a sense of TIME which is a science. The timing is impeccable. Ein’s profile is a annual event.

To behold a moving manmade object crossing a pond high in the sky, is a transcendence. That technology put a man on the moon, and a robot on Mars. These puddles are living paintings, even kinetic sculptures when a slight breeze stirs the surface. Remember, there used to be a store on this site, were humans entered and left with merchandise after exchanging currency, a way of counting and measuring.  Two years ago the store was torn down, and artists and astronomers have led the way to return this site to nature and science. But more than that this concrete is a Landing Pad for the Muses. These Muses will take us to other solar systems and we will be identified as UFOs and Aliens. But, when the dust of confusion, settles, they will see us for what we are……………Artists!

“Where are you from?”

“The Museum.”

“Where is that?”

“It is the place we store Other Dimensions and our Time Machine. We can create something from nothing. We can see things others can’t see.”

“Can you teach us how to do these things?”



FLASH: Los Angeles residents better start making their earthquake-preparedness kits — scientists say there’s a 99 percent chance that a quake will rock the city sometime before 2018. 

Using radar and GPS to measure the likelihood of an earthquake, experts from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena predict a 5.0-magnitude shaker — or bigger — for the L.A. area.”

When I saw the video of me following the crack, and coming to a mound of cracks and rubble, I wondered if this was a sign of things to come.

These are the Children of the Future. They have come to Springfield’s Stonehenge to calculate when the next Solstice and Equinox is going to be. Stonehenge is humankinds oldest, and most beautiful monument to Science.

In 1969 I declared myself a ‘New Pre-Raphaelite’.  On this day, I found  ‘The New Proof Brother and Sisterhood’. Don’t you think it is time to massively fund the Arts and Artists, so they may build a Starship? This is how my novel ‘The Gideon Computer’ ends.


October 20, 2015
Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)
For more than 30 years, scientists have argued about a controversial hypothesis relating to periodic mass extinctions and impact craters — caused by comet and asteroid showers — on Earth.

We are creatures that live amongst the stars. There is no proof there exist other creatures like us. Have I provided proof we must leave, and found another world, perhaps in a New Dimension?

Jon Presco

The Dragon Born Elijah

I have seen signs in heaven, and on earth. I gazed in a puddle of rain water, and beheld a comet. I inquired of a lost mural, and found an astrologer who takes measurements. She once painted a comet, that was sand blasted away. There is a gun, a comet, pointed at Sophia’s head. The master of symbols is decoding as fast as he can. Now I understand why so many have tried to stop me from seeing what I shall see. Disproving the Born Again Elijah, has become an extreme necessity. Was not Elijah taken up in a Chariot of Fire?

Who will go with?

I am a long-haired Merovingian Comet King who wears a Starry Crown. I have been doing genealogies. I have come to lead the children – home! Only I have solved the riddle of Rosamunde, the Queen of the Franks. She is the mermaid – combing her hair while gazing in a mirror. I descend from her. She born me again in a shower of falling stars.



“The word comet derives from the Old English cometa from the Latin comēta or comētēs. That, in turn, is a latinisation of the Greek κομήτης (“wearing long hair”), and the Oxford English Dictionary notes that the term (ἀστὴρ) κομήτης already meant “long-haired star, comet” in Greek. Κομήτης was derived from κομᾶν (“to wear the hair long”), which was itself derived from κόμη (“the hair of the head”) and was used to mean “the tail of a comet”.[9][10]

The astronomical symbol for comets is (), consisting of a small disc with three hairlike extensions.[11]



“Do not tell us our world is coming to an end. Kill the messenger!”

Have there been false prophets before me? Perhaps they spoke the truth, on another world, in another dimension?

Copyright 2017

sci10 sci12 sci13 sci14button25










“Children Of The Future”

We are children of the future
Wonder where this world is going to, going to
We are children of the future
Wonder what in this world we are going to do, going to do

If you’re reading this
Than it means we (did not) failed
But all hope’s not lost
It is not, it is not
If these words ring true
My mulatto brew
It has been foretold
It is yours, it is yours

Yes the children are the future
Yes the children are
They’re the next phase, they’re the next stage
They’re the next great, they’re the next wave
Time is on their side

This is how it grows
It will ebb and flow
So don’t lose your knack
Or your heart, or your heart
They will silence you
Try to punish you
You will find your way
In the stars, in the stars

Yes the children are the future
Yes the children are
They’re the next phase, they’re the next stage
They’re the next great, they’re the next wave
Time is on their side

Be all that you can be
Be all we never were
Succeed where we failed
And make them eat it

If you’re reading this
Than it means we failed
But all hope’s not lost
We will not be the last
We will not

Read more: Bloc Party – Children Of The Future Lyrics | MetroLyrics

He notices. To him, these sidewalk tableaux make him ever more convinced that there is a higher intelligence behind it all. In one of his photographs, “From and to Another Dimension,” for instance, a crack in the sidewalk arches through one square, into another and ends in an orange paint splatter.

“I find situations that correlate to my verbal expressions, as if I had created them,” he said, with a tinge of an accent from his native Austria. “But I didn’t create them. But they are there. My theory is that I created them in a different realm of existence.”

sci3 sci2

Above is what I consider a artistic masterpiece. It is beyond being a readymade, because, it has no owner. No artists name can be applied to it. It is not a co-creation. What it is a faint pink line drawn on the cement that was once the floor of a store that was once covered in linoleum. The scratches you see were made when workmen used tools to take the linoleum up. They were aware these tools were scratching the surface. They saw the patterns they left behind, but, never dreamed they were creating a work of art – that did not exist – until folks who put on Springfield’s Chalk Festival mapped out rectangles on the cement using a square a measuring tape. They then folded in half a piece of cardboard, wrote the artists name on it –  that reserved this space – then taped it to the cement. When I captured this plot in the frame of my photograph, I was a new owner, or, co-owner of this plot, because I was the first to render it into a work of art – or so I thought. After I re-framed the concrete, I considered if I was Stefen Ein’s disciple.


What the chalk line is, is CONJURING. It may represent the coming together of the artistic ideas of two Bohemian Artists, they meeting on the edge of the two-dimensional cage that most framed artwork is, or isn’t in some rare cases. This is one of those rarities. With the suggestion of color, I experienced an optical illusion where I saw this plot covered in faint pastel colors, yellow, blue, green. My mind was filling in the blank area. It took some effort to stop my hallucinating and see what was really there. What I would eventually see, is that this work transcends, teleporting, telephoning, telescoping, and, teledesign, a word I just made up. It could be delayed-telepathy where the message has been sent, after the means to receive the message has been launched.

Then I mentioned the Dwan Gallery in Westwood. Stefen mentioned the Dwan Gallery in New York. What we talked about was TELEMUSE, another word I invented. Picture Muse with wings disguised as workmen with hard-hats, they sweating as their muscles create an invisible work of art. Now, you can smell their sweat. There is no owner. This work comes straight from the Muses who are no longer here to inspire us so the muse of price tags can complete the deal.

What they could be doing is installing a new way to look at art from another dimension that can lead to a new science because it transcends the limitation of physical ownership, thus, molecular ownership which has bogged down the dream of a transporter device like the one we see in Star Trek. If you order nothing, nothing is sent to – you! This is the NON-ORDERED universe that will put Amazon out of business, because it is bigger than Amazon.

“Thou shall not want” are the words of a deity that could be two places at once, and has transcended death.  We can see Zephyrs in the clouds. This is the new augury. The augur has laid out the lines for the Stellar Mind Temple. Then, there is Dream Time. tales from, a scarred moon.

When the first rain comes, the Springfield Chalk Art, will wash away. Then there is the chalk lines Ophelia draws on the stone wall in Pan’s Labyrinth. There was a maze made at Fashion Moda. My friend Virginia is kin to the King and Queens of Bohemia. Was a template used to mark the plots of creation? Consider the templum and the auspices of Graffiti Art. Most Americans want to go to a better world. We make doors to – there!

Jon Presco

Copyright 2015

A person’s assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. For example, the Earth’s apparent lack of motion may be taken as evidence for a geocentric cosmology. However, after sufficient evidence is presented for heliocentric cosmology and the apparent lack of motion is explained, the initial observation is strongly discounted as evidence.

Measurement in Science

First published Mon Jun 15, 2015


I am wearing Merlin’s hat that is full of stars. Did I summon the rain clouds and the sun to make mirrors, crystal balls so I might see into the future?


Measurement is an integral part of modern science as well as of engineering, commerce, and daily life. Measurement is often considered a hallmark of the scientific enterprise and a privileged source of knowledge relative to qualitative modes of inquiry.[1] Despite its ubiquity and importance, there is little consensus among philosophers as to how to define measurement, what sorts of things are measurable, or which conditions make measurement possible. Most (but not all) contemporary authors agree that measurement is an activity that involves interaction with a concrete system with the aim of representing aspects of that system in abstract terms (e.g., in terms of classes, numbers, vectors etc.) But this characterization also fits various kinds of perceptual and linguistic activities that are not usually considered measurements, and is therefore too broad to count as a definition of measurement. Moreover, if “concrete” implies “real”, this characterization is also too narrow, as measurement often involves the representation of ideal systems such as the average household or an electron at complete rest.

Philosophers have written on a variety of conceptual, metaphysical, semantic and epistemological issues related to measurement. This entry will survey the central philosophical standpoints on the nature of measurement, the notion of measurable quantity and related epistemological issues. It will refrain from elaborating on the many discipline-specific problems associated with measurement and focus on issues that have a general character.

1. Overview

Modern philosophical discussions about measurement—spanning from the late nineteenth century to the present day—may be divided into several strands of scholarship. These strands reflect different perspectives on the nature of measurement and the conditions that make measurement possible and reliable. The main strands are mathematical theories of measurement, operationalism, conventionalism, realism, information-theoretic accounts and model-based accounts. These strands of scholarship do not, for the most part, constitute directly competing views. Instead, they are best understood as highlighting different and complementary aspects of measurement. The following is a very rough overview of these perspectives:

  1. Mathematical theories of measurement view measurement as the mapping of qualitative empirical relations to relations among numbers (or other mathematical entities).
  2. Operationalists and conventionalists view measurement as a set of operations that shape the meaning and/or regulate the use of a quantity-term.
  3. Realists view measurement as the estimation of mind-independent properties and/or relations.
  4. Information-theoretic accounts view measurement as the gathering and interpretation of information about a system.
  5. Model-based accounts view measurement as the coherent assignment of values to parameters in a theoretical and/or statistical model of a process.

These perspectives are in principle consistent with each other. While mathematical theories of measurement deal with the mathematical foundations of measurement scales, operationalism and conventionalism are primarily concerned with the semantics of quantity terms, realism is concerned with the metaphysical status of measurable quantities, and information-theoretic and model-based accounts are concerned with the epistemological aspects of measuring. Nonetheless, the subject domain is not as neatly divided as the list above suggests. Issues concerning the metaphysics, epistemology, semantics and mathematical foundations of measurement are interconnected and often bear on one another. Hence, for example, operationalists and conventionalists have often adopted anti-realist views, and proponents of model-based accounts have argued against the prevailing empiricist interpretation of mathematical theories of measurement. These subtleties will become clear in the following discussion.

The list of strands of scholarship is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. It reflects the historical trajectory of the philosophical discussion thus far, rather than any principled distinction among different levels of analysis of measurement. Some philosophical works on measurement belong to more than one strand, while many other works do not squarely fit either. This is especially the case since the early 2000s, when measurement returned to the forefront of philosophical discussion after several decades of relative neglect. This recent body of scholarship is sometimes called “the epistemology of measurement”, and includes a rich array of works that cannot yet be classified into distinct schools of thought. The last section of this entry will be dedicated to surveying some of these developments.

2. Quantity and Magnitude: A Brief History

Although the philosophy of measurement formed as a distinct area of inquiry only during the second half of the nineteenth century, fundamental concepts of measurement such as magnitude and quantity have been discussed since antiquity. According to Euclid’s Elements, a magnitude—such as a line, a surface or a solid—measures another when the latter is a whole multiple of the former (Book V, def. 1 & 2). Two magnitudes have a common measure when they are both whole multiples of some magnitude, and are incommensurable otherwise (Book X, def. 1). The discovery of incommensurable magnitudes allowed Euclid and his contemporaries to develop the notion of a ratio of magnitudes. Ratios can be either rational or irrational, and therefore the concept of ratio is more general than that of measure (Michell 2003, 2004; Grattan-Guinness 1996).

Aristotle distinguished between quantities and qualities. Examples of quantities are numbers, lines, surfaces, bodies, time and place, whereas examples of qualities are justice, health, hotness and paleness (Categories §6 and §8). According to Aristotle, quantities admit of equality and inequality but not of degrees, as “one thing is not more four-foot than another” (ibid. 6.6a19). Qualities, conversely, do not admit of equality or inequality but do admit of degrees, “for one thing is called more pale or less pale than another” (ibid. 8.10b26). Aristotle did not clearly specify whether degrees of qualities such as paleness correspond to distinct qualities, or whether the same quality, paleness, was capable of different intensities. This topic was at the center of an ongoing debate in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Jung 2011). Duns Scotus supported the “addition theory”, according to which a change in the degree of a quality can be explained by the addition or subtraction of smaller degrees of that quality (2011: 553). This theory was later refined by Nicole Oresme, who used geometrical figures to represent changes in the intensity of qualities such as velocity (Clagett 1968; Sylla 1971). Oresme’s geometrical representations established a subset of qualities that were amenable to quantitative treatment, thereby challenging the strict Aristotelian dichotomy between quantities and qualities. These developments made possible the formulation of quantitative laws of motion during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Grant 1996).

The concept of qualitative intensity was further developed by Leibniz and Kant. Leibniz’s “principle of continuity” stated that all natural change is produced by degrees. Leibniz argued that this principle applies not only to changes in extended magnitudes such as length and duration, but also to intensities of representational states of consciousness, such as sounds (Jorgensen 2009; Diehl 2012). Kant is thought to have relied on Leibniz’s principle of continuity to formulate his distinction between extensive and intensive magnitudes. According to Kant, extensive magnitudes are those “in which the representation of the parts makes possible the representation of the whole” (1787: A162/B203). An example is length: a line can only be mentally represented by a successive synthesis in which parts of the line join to form the whole. For Kant, the possibility of such synthesis was grounded in the forms of intuition, namely space and time. Intensive magnitudes, like warmth or colors, also come in continuous degrees, but their apprehension takes place in an instant rather than through a successive synthesis of parts. The degrees of intensive magnitudes “can only be represented through approximation to negation” (1787: A 168/B210), that is, by imagining their gradual diminution until their complete absence.

Scientific developments during the nineteenth century challenged the distinction between extensive and intensive magnitudes. Thermodynamics and wave optics showed that differences in temperature and hue corresponded to differences in spatio-temporal magnitudes such as velocity and wavelength. Electrical magnitudes such as resistance and conductance were shown to be capable of addition and division despite not being extensive in the Kantian sense, i.e., not synthesized from spatial or temporal parts. Moreover, early experiments in psychophysics suggested that intensities of sensation such as brightness and loudness could be represented as sums of “just noticeable differences” among stimuli, and could therefore be thought of as composed of parts (see Section 3.3). These findings, along with advances in the axiomatization of branches of mathematics, motivated some of the leading scientists of the late nineteenth century to attempt to clarify the mathematical foundations of measurement (Maxwell 1873; von Kries 1882; Helmholtz 1887; Mach 1896; Poincaré 1898; Hölder 1901; for historical surveys see Darrigol 2003; Michell 1993, 2003; Cantù and Schlaudt 2013). These works are viewed today as precursors to the body of scholarship known as “measurement theory”.

3. Mathematical Theories of Measurement (“Measurement Theory”)

Mathematical theories of measurement (often referred to collectively as “measurement theory”) concern the conditions under which relations among numbers (and other mathematical entities) can be used to express relations among objects.[2] In order to appreciate the need for mathematical theories of measurement, consider the fact that relations exhibited by numbers—such as equality, sum, difference and ratio—do not always correspond to relations among the objects measured by those numbers. For example, 60 is twice 30, but one would be mistaken in thinking that an object measured at 60 degrees Celsius is twice as hot as an object at 30 degrees Celsius. This is because the zero point of the Celsius scale is arbitrary and does not correspond to an absence of temperature.[3] Similarly, numerical intervals do not always carry empirical information. When subjects are asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 7 how strongly they agree with a given statement, there is no prima facie reason to think that the intervals between 5 and 6 and between 6 and 7 correspond to equal increments of strength of opinion. To provide a third example, equality among numbers is transitive [if (a=b & b=c) then a=c] but empirical comparisons among physical magnitudes reveal only approximate equality, which is not a transitive relation. These examples suggest that not all of the mathematical relations among numbers used in measurement are empirically significant, and that different kinds of measurement scale convey different kinds of empirically significant information.

The study of measurement scales and the empirical information they convey is the main concern of mathematical theories of measurement. In his seminal 1887 essay, “Counting and Measuring”, Hermann von Helmholtz phrased the key question of measurement theory as follows:

[W]hat is the objective meaning of expressing through denominate numbers the relations of real objects as magnitudes, and under what conditions can we do this? (1887: 4)

Broadly speaking, measurement theory sets out to (i) identify the assumptions underlying the use of various mathematical structures for describing aspects of the empirical world, and (ii) draw lessons about the adequacy and limits of using these mathematical structures for describing aspects of the empirical world. Following Otto Hölder (1901), measurement theorists often tackle these goals through formal proofs, with the assumptions in (i) serving as axioms and the lessons in (ii) following as theorems. A key insight of measurement theory is that the empirically significant aspects of a given mathematical structure are those that mirror relevant relations among the objects being measured. For example, the relation “bigger than” among numbers is empirically significant for measuring length insofar as it mirrors the relation “longer than” among objects. This mirroring, or mapping, of relations between objects and mathematical entities constitutes a measurement scale. As will be clarified below, measurement scales are usually thought of as isomorphisms or homomorphisms between objects and mathematical entities.

Other than these broad goals and claims, measurement theory is a highly heterogeneous body of scholarship. It includes works that span from the late nineteenth century to the present day and endorse a wide array of views on the ontology, epistemology and semantics of measurement. Two main differences among mathematical theories of measurement are especially worth mentioning. The first concerns the nature of the relata, or “objects”, whose relations numbers are supposed to mirror. These relata may be understood in at least four different ways: as concrete individual objects, as qualitative observations of concrete individual objects, as abstract representations of individual objects, or as universal properties of objects. Which interpretation is adopted depends in large part on the author’s metaphysical and epistemic commitments. This issue will be especially relevant to the discussion of realist accounts of measurement (Section 5). Second, different measurement theorists have taken different stands on the kind of empirical evidence that is required to establish mappings between objects and numbers. As a result, measurement theorists have come to disagree about the necessary conditions for establishing the measurability of attributes, and specifically about whether psychological attributes are measurable. Debates about measurability have been highly fruitful for the development of measurement theory, and the following subsections will introduce some of these debates and the central concepts developed therein.

3.1 Fundamental and derived measurement

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries several attempts were made to provide a universal definition of measurement. Although accounts of measurement varied, the consensus was that measurement is a method of assigning numbers to magnitudes. For example, Helmholtz (1887: 17) defined measurement as the procedure by which one finds the denominate number that expresses the value of a magnitude, where a “denominate number” is a number together with a unit, e.g., 5 meters, and a magnitude is a quality of objects that is amenable to ordering from smaller to greater, e.g., length. Bertrand Russell similarly stated that measurement is

any method by which a unique and reciprocal correspondence is established between all or some of the magnitudes of a kind and all or some of the numbers, integral, rational or real. (1903: 176)

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.