Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie  I didn't say math didn't help our understanding, I said it was secondary, not primary. Do you remember it was Einstein's vision of riding on a photon, that lead his search for the math to prove it...? Substance/object first. Math second...
Where's your fundamental substance/object, so we may have a starting point...? Math is not a ligitimate fundamental starting point of any reality... It must relate to a subject/object___First...!
And btw, I already read the above link, no need to advertise nonsense any further... Your theory of nothing/everything is the mere concept of your own desires, and nothing more, and I might add, not true, not science, not math, not anything... Fredrick, the concept of the concept, is no more than the concept of one's own pre-scientific ego desires... You can't start any realities, from mere imaginal abstract insignificances...
You know, I think sometimes, that many of you don't even realize, I once had the same fundamental natural intuitive-logic searching brain, as do many of you. I evolved... And as I've stated before, and being a wise-guy: "As you are, I once was. As I am, you never will be"...
Lloyd |
It looks, Lloyd, that you are unwilling to communicate about my delivery. The only argument I have heard from you so far in respect to it, is that you want to talk about the beef that needs to be behind the math. That in itself is meager pickings, but I will try make the most of the little you offer.
Math can be seen as the abstraction of reality; it has often been the scout for many other branches of science; and there is a good reason various scientists state that it is
the language god speaks to us. In as far as the religious remark: I am not that interested in the divine on this thread/platform. I claim the toe should be pronounceable on a scientific level (as much as on any other level).
Anything in our reality can be translated into the abstract of math, Dipayankar. While it is possible to state more with math than that what is our reality, it is not possible to state less with math than our reality. Even if you say that my delivery is not a window on the toe, it is impossible to say that the toe cannot be translated into math. Whatever the toe is, it (or its abstract) can be delivered using math.
I hope you understand, MJA, that when I say
Einstein and me that I then not automatically agree with everything Einstein said. I do not. I would not have made his remark about god not rolling dice. But Einstein and I both say that the toe must be simple/basic in itself — so simple a three years old can understand it.
The toe exists in math already. The question is: did I find the window to see it (and many others before me) or are we still looking for that toe in math? I do not care what place you give math, but rather than arguing about the circumstantial matter and ideologies, please address directly what I deliver.
If you claim my delivery is not appropriate, you must support your statement with arguments that are appropriate to the discussion. So far, you have not. You will find in me a willing person to think along with you. But I will not discuss big names of people or theories; I want to talk about the real stuff. In as far as the ego is concerned: yes, I have an ego, just like you and everyone else. So, big deal!?! If my delivery is understood by others then I will still not be able to say that I was the first to deliver it; many before us already delivered this window on everything.
The binary system is already very much what this window is about. The decimal system allows for confusion, seemingly incorporating that what does not exist. All I am doing is taking away the confusion.
Again, Lloyd, if you say that I am not delivering anything then that is your choice, and that makes for short conversation.