XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Bill Sloman  wrote:   
      
   > On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > Plato, and most mathematicians with him,   
   > > will disagree very much with you.   
   >   
   > They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.   
      
   It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular   
   polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.   
      
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > > And all of physics of course.   
   >  >   
   > > Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,   
   > > when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.   
   > > (like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)   
   > >   
   > >> This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to   
   > >> capture reality.   
   > >   
   > > What has human language got to do with it?   
   >   
   > That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.   
      
   Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)