Not really

This matter--of course--cannot be seriously "debated", I trust we see..
(I concede that my 'reductio not-quite absurdum' evades anything resembling mathematical Proof (which is yet another abstraction.)) Guess I like Feynman's quip a lot:
~ "People think that, because we have a name for something: we understand it.."

I submit {merely} that [Reality] ever escapes our ken. A.E.'s "bright pebbles on a beach" is as good as any metaphor about the fact that metaphor IS ... [solely] what all our lore communicates. We don't even know if *math! is an intrinsic aspect of our Cosmos (that mostly empty-space with quanta perfusing it) or it is the only way our peculiar jelloware can function. At. all.

* Bertie (Russell) tried to reach, er "bed-rock" in the inductive/deductive processes we're so fond of: it drove him NUTS/a lesser person would have remained catatonic, but Bertie was LARGE
(and could choose off the likes of Wittgenstein) ..and related silver-tongued orators ... no?

Physics is Hard. But philosophy precedes it/also encompasses it ('physics" used to be called, "natural philosophy". Love. It.)

Ed: oTpy

Post #402,860 by jake123 6/25/15 12:21:25 PM Reply	Not really Personally I think the Planck length tells us that nature is digital (albeit not binary ;) ). It's why Pi is an irrational number; the Planck length means that one will never actually encounter a perfect circle in nature because nature is discrete.
Post #402,861 by boxley 6/25/15 12:50:15 PM Reply	dunno, the loafs I pinch out appear to be perfectly round tubes Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #402,965 by Ashton 6/27/15 6:18:57 AM 6/27/15 6:44:54 AM Reply	Re: Not really This matter--of course--cannot be seriously "debated", I trust we see.. (I concede that my 'reductio not-quite absurdum' evades anything resembling mathematical Proof (which is yet another abstraction.)) Guess I like Feynman's quip a lot: ~ "People think that, because we have a name for something: we understand it.." I submit {merely} that [Reality] ever escapes our ken. A.E.'s "bright pebbles on a beach" is as good as any metaphor about the fact that metaphor IS ... [solely] what all our lore communicates. We don't even know if math! is an intrinsic aspect of our Cosmos (that mostly empty-space with quanta perfusing it) or it is the only way our peculiar jelloware can function. At. all. Bertie (Russell) tried to reach, er "bed-rock" in the inductive/deductive processes we're so fond of: it drove him NUTS/a lesser person would have remained catatonic, but Bertie was LARGE (and could choose off the likes of Wittgenstein) ..and related silver-tongued orators ... no? Physics is Hard. But philosophy precedes it/also encompasses it ('physics" used to be called, "natural philosophy". Love. It.) Ed: oTpy Polonious, that insufferable busy-body asks Hamlet, What readst thou? Hamlet--the kewl dude--replies ... Words ... words. I think I'm going into my mind.. (I once asked a 'esoteric student', "So then, what do you know today, Fershure?") Her reply was unarguably honest: "Nothing. Nothing at all." Our species is pretty dense; I don't expect much improvement within n-millennia. Especially if we finish trashing the planet for all mammals and much else, as seems most likely ... y'know?) Sam Clemens had our Number; see his posthumous words on The Whole Damned Human Race. ;^> Edited by Ashton June 27, 2015, 06:44:54 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!