Bruno writes
snip
I see what you mean and I agree with you, but now, you were again
talking about third person description of the first person point of
view (I will write 1-pov, 3-pov, ...).
Yes. I find that the 1st person accounts to be pretty subjective,
actually. They also lead to
Ah, waht is mathematics?
I suspect humans could spend their life-times pondering this profound
question and never fully understand.
I'm a mathematical realist in the sense that I think mathematical
entities are real objective properties of reality and not just human
inventions, but I've come
Hal Finney writes:
The problem is that there seems to be no basis for judging the validity
of this kind of analysis. Do we die every instant? Do we survive sleep
but not being frozen? Do we live on in our copies? Does our identity
extend to all conscious entities? There are so many
Marc:
your considerations are enlightening. I am no mathematician so I try to
evaluate your (and others') remarks in a broader sense - and get diverse
thoughts.
Your question is more and more relevant and less and less explained by those
who live in math. Tom wrote: math is invariant, but is it
Marc and John,
Interesting ideas. Don't have time to comment appropriately. But I
want to say one thing about my previous thought. Note that I said that
mathematics is *about* invariance; I didn't say that mathematics *is*
necessarily invariant. There's a big difference.
Tom
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Bruno writes
snip
I see what you mean and I agree with you, but now, you were again
talking about third person description of the first person point of
view (I will write 1-pov, 3-pov, ...).
Yes. I find that the 1st person accounts to be pretty subjective,
Tom,
my English may be feeble and artificial (as the 5th), but I see not too much
difference IN ESSENCE whether math is dealing with (about!) invariance, or
the idea of math is itself (about?) invariance.
Invariance is the state itself I like to disregard.
John
- Original Message -
From:
Brent, Colin and Bruno:
I had my decade-long struggle on 3-4 discussion lists (~psych and ~Physx)
about objective reality being really subjective virtuality - and I
finally won.
Assuming (!) an existing 'reality' (=not being solipsist) also assumes that
impacts arrive at one's mind (what is it?)
Hi Lee,
I have no qualms with your point here, but it seems that we have skipped
past the question that I am trying to pose: Where does distinguishability
and individuation follow from the mere existence of Platonic Forms, if
process is merely a relation between Forms (as Bruno et al
Hi,
[ALL]
Lee, I seem to have miss-attributed the source of my guffaw that lead to my
little outburst to Bruno. Apologies to all as appropriate... :-)
[John Mikes]
Brent, Colin and Bruno:
I had my decade-long struggle on 3-4 discussion lists (~psych and ~Physx)
about objective reality being
10 matches
Mail list logo
