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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to