On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> **
> On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk 
> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the
>> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if
>> > you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense.
>>  I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical
>> realism; I
>> don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer. 1+1=2
>> is
>> still true, just not independently of us. The reason is that 1+1=2 makes
>> sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a subject
>> that intuits what truth is.
>> This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for somebody
>> else,
>> but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego)
>> necessarily
>> am.
>> My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / "I
>> am-ness" and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well,
>> expressions
>> of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of 1+1
>> being
>> itself as 2.
>> This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as it
>> is.
>> The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just expressions
>> of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it is,
>> but
>> never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing
>> itself through explanations.
>>
>>
>  Ben,
>
>  Would you say that e^*(2 * Pi * i) is exactly equal to 1, rather than
> approximately equal to 1?
>
>  If you believe that it is, you are believing in the independent existence
> of infinitely long numbers e and Pi, numbers which have never been fully
> grasped by any human, and potentially never grasped by any conscious being
> anywhere (due to their infinite nature).
>
>  Jason
>
>
> That seems to turn on a certain meaning of "grasped".  Looking at a finite
> decimal representation might be one meaning of "grasp" but it seems like an
> artificially impoverished one.  "Pi is the ratio of the length of the
> circumference to the diameter of a plane circle." is also a finite
> representation and one that I find easier to grasp than , say, 10^10^100.
>
>
For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form,
but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this
universe.  Ben believes mathematical truth only exists in our minds, but
does Pi really exist in our minds, or only the notion that it can be derived
as the ratio between a plane circle and its diameter?  Pi is so big that its
digits contain all movies and all books ever created, surely this is not
present within our minds, but it is exactly what must exist for e^(2*Pi*i) =
1.

Jason

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to