Inclined to agree with Joseph. I would like to point out that there are
different meanings for "real', and one has to be clear about ones
metaphysics to make the idea (somewhat) clear. Peirce, for example,
would call Plato's shadows (which aren't really shadows at all, real,
but not existent.
Dear FISers,
With all due respect to Krassimir, Sung, and his son, it is becoming a matter
of scientific interest that statements by them and others to the effect that
"systematic research of what the 'shadows' are a part" has not been done are
made routinely. First of all, the logic in reality
Daer Krassimir, List
I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics
you presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of
the best. However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or
logical proof by itself, in its formalism, does not show
Dear Sung,
I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.
1. The shadows are real but only a part of the whole. What is needed is a
systematic research from what they are part.
2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen you like:
CATA => F => CATB => G
