XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their   
   consequences. Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)