XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 21/02/2026 4:41 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>> On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
>>> we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
>>> including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
>>> wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
>>> (eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
>>> after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
>>> "Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
>>> or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
>>> of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
>>>
>>> And correct, ....
>>
>> Mathematics is just another human language.
>>
>> A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
>> "Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
>>
>> It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
>> to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
>>
>> This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
>> capture reality.
>>
>
> For something like nucleonics and nuclear theory,
> there's that the periodic table of elements,
> has another chart for the isotope chart, that's
> just more like a wide line on the order of atomic
> mass, then that their fundamental identities and
> associations, of the nuclear species, might find
> the usual account as after organizing for bond orbitals,
> as removed from classical as the isotope table is
> from the periodic table.
Chemistry is about the electrons. Changing the neutron count has pretty
much zero effect on the chemistry.
> It's similar with other theories about what's "elementary"
> and what's "derived", or what's "fundamental" and what's
> "derived", as to what is incremental in one, is only
> eventual in the other, and vice versa.
Rubbish.
> For example, a space of geometry, and a space of words,
> has usual accounts since, for example, and not to make
> a theological account yet only as a common source with
> established editions, Genesis 1 starts with a space
> for geometry and John 1 starts with a space for words.
Who cares? And why would they?
> It's so that we can't really speak of that
> for which there are no words, ultimately
> "the ineffable", then that the idea that
> man can comprehend the infinite and continuous,
> is for matters of reason, besides.
If you need a new word, invent it. You may have trouble defining it, but
if you felt the need for the new word you should be able to explain why.
It's considerably safer than trying to attach an old word to new concept.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
