XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.   
   >   
   >> Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.   
   >   
   > I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns   
   > at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.   
      
   The Greenland ice sheet   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet   
      
   would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at   
   once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age.   
      
   The West Antarctic ice sheet   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet   
      
   will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.   
      
   Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of   
   stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started   
   melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)