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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to