1Z wrote: > Tom Caylor wrote: > > > I'd say a candidate for making AR false is the behavior of the prime > > numbers, as has been discussed regarding your Riemann zeta function > > TOE. As I suggested on that thread, it could be that the behavior of > > the Riemann zeta function follows a collapse that is dependent on the > > observer. > > !!!! That's the strangest thign I've read ina long > time. >
Truth is stranger than fiction. Something strange may be just what is needed to break out of going around in circles. > BTW, do you find AR umabiguous? Is it about truth or existence, in your > view ? The way I see it, we define math in the first place as being "whatever is independent of the observer" (i.e. invariance). (This is why observer-dependent math seems absurd.) But then I think this search for invariance eventually brings us full circle to a self-referential paradox. Math is whatever we observe (to be true / to exist) independent of the observer. Is AR about truth or existence? Is "the earth is flat" about truth or existence? I believe only in a "relative/local/apparent AR", but that really isn't AR. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
