XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bill Sloman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
>> 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.
>
> Inventing catastrophes is easy.
> Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented. There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current
distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and
Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all
that often in geological history.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
