• Re: The CMBR Disproves the Big Bang. (realism)

    From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 2 17:18:00 2025
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
    Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the redshift >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the exact centre of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of the >>>>>>>>>>>> universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a possibility) >>>>>>>>>>>

    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me;
    for how can other viewpoints enter,
    when all the rest is all around me?


    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

    is a line from a song with these lines:

    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me /
    I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have
    a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
    we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
    and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
    variables of the real wave equation", has that
    it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
    answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
    and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
    and theory of science to go along with a merest
    teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.


    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 2 18:21:25 2025
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen:
    Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redshift
    distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a
    possibility)


    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me;
    for how can other viewpoints enter,
    when all the rest is all around me?


    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

    is a line from a song with these lines:

    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me /
    I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have
    a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
    we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
    and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
    variables of the real wave equation", has that
    it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
    answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
    and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
    and theory of science to go along with a merest
    teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.


    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E- POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5

    The idea of Comenius language is that
    the true words already exist, then we
    discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
    that mathematics is discovered not invented,

    So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
    wishful thinking.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 2 23:08:02 2025
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 18:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redshift
    distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the centre of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility)


    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me;
    for how can other viewpoints enter,
    when all the rest is all around me?


    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

    is a line from a song with these lines:

    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me /
    I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have
    a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
    we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
    and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
    variables of the real wave equation", has that
    it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
    answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
    and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
    and theory of science to go along with a merest
    teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.


    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-
    POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5

    The idea of Comenius language is that
    the true words already exist, then we
    discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
    that mathematics is discovered not invented,

    So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
    wishful thinking.



    No, it's an _ideal_ that we may _attain_ to.

    Yes, it's some wishful-thinking bullshit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 3 23:27:30 2025
    W dniu 03.03.2025 o 19:14, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 02:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 03/02/2025 02:08 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 18:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redshift
    distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
    direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the
    universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility)


    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me;
    for how can other viewpoints enter,
    when all the rest is all around me?


    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

    is a line from a song with these lines:

    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me /
    I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have
    a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
    we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
    and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
    variables of the real wave equation", has that
    it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language,
    answering the fundamental question of metaphysics,
    and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
    and theory of science to go along with a merest
    teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical.


    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-
    POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5

    The idea of Comenius language is that
    the true words already exist, then we
    discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
    that mathematics is discovered not invented,

    So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
    wishful thinking.



    No, it's an _ideal_ that we may _attain_ to.

    Yes, it's some wishful-thinking bullshit.


    _Inevitable_ ....


    Ladislav Tondl's a platonist, according to himself, ....



    Would you agree that Tondl's "vote" about
    the semantics and syntax of science, is, weighty?

    That it has, ..., heft?

    Weighty or not, if he's saying the same what
    you are saying it's the same bullshit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 4 08:03:06 2025
    W dniu 04.03.2025 o 02:38, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/03/2025 02:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 03.03.2025 o 19:14, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 02:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 03/02/2025 02:08 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 18:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze:
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote:

    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> redshift
    distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
    direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the
    universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility)


    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me;
    for how can other viewpoints enter,
    when all the rest is all around me?


    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...".

    is a line from a song with these lines:

    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have
    a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians,
    we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary,
    and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary
    variables of the real wave equation", has that
    it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering the fundamental question of metaphysics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy
    and theory of science to go along with a merest
    teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E- >>>>>>>> POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5

    The idea of Comenius language is that
    the true words already exist, then we
    discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
    that mathematics is discovered not invented,

    So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
    wishful thinking.



    No, it's an _ideal_ that we may _attain_ to.

    Yes, it's some wishful-thinking bullshit.


    _Inevitable_ ....


    Ladislav Tondl's a platonist, according to himself, ....



    Would you agree that Tondl's "vote" about
    the semantics and syntax of science, is, weighty?

    That it has, ..., heft?

    Weighty or not, if he's saying the same what
    you are saying it's the same bullshit.


    And Hegel?

    I don't even care. What did he know about
    neural networks and how a human brain works?
    What do YOU know?
    No, the words are not discovered. Neither
    ordinary, nor mathematical. The schema
    which is creating them is a complicated one,
    I admit. For you it may look like some magic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 4 13:14:37 2025
    W dniu 04.03.2025 o 12:16, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/03/2025 11:03 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 04.03.2025 o 02:38, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/03/2025 02:27 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 03.03.2025 o 19:14, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 02:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
    On 03/02/2025 02:08 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 18:41, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 09:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:42, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/02/2025 08:18 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 02.03.2025 o 17:00, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 10:42 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 23:52, Ross Finlayson pisze:
    On 03/01/2025 09:38 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    W dniu 01.03.2025 o 16:41, Ross Finlayson pisze: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/01/2025 04:29 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 01.03.2025 o 11:53, J. J. Lodder pisze: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/28/2025 03:41 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On 02/25/2025 05:27 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guido wugi <wugi@brol.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Op 23/02/2025 om 14:46 schreef Paul.B.Andersen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Den 22.02.2025 20:18, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The velocity-distance relation fails to explain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    redshift
    distance
    relation because the latter is exactly the same in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
    direction so
    the former would place us at exactly the center of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    universe.

    Do you still not understand that we are in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact
    centre of
    the observable universe?

    He doesn't understand yet the relatitivity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> centre of
    the
    universe
    ;)
    (even at big bang an infinite universe is still a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility)


    Here is Piet Hein's take on it


    THE CENTRAL POINT
    A philosophistry

    I am the Universe's Centre.
    No subtle sceptics can confound me; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for how can other viewpoints enter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when all the rest is all around me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hard to argue with that,

    Jan


    "I know a girl called Trampoline, ...". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    is a line from a song with these lines: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    "When I was three /
    I thought the world revolved around me / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wrong."

    Infant

    Piet Hein is never wrong,

    Jan


    In his own little world

    That is not an answer.
    (except perhaps in your little world)

    Us stronger mathematical platonists have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more thorough grounding where
    we're all right.

    And not "not even wrong".

    Platonism has no relation with reality.
    If it has, it is no longer Platonism,

    JJ locuta! Causa finita!




    "Amicus Plato, finito"


    A strong mathematical platonism, that the
    objects of mathematics are quite real,
    and a stronger logicist positivism,
    that we have a science about it,
    combines the best of both the idealistic
    and the analytic traditions.

    Often it's Hegel who's ascribed to having
    that sort of put together, best, then though
    there are lots of kinds of soi-disant Hegelians, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're logical Hegelians, not polemical.


    So, in the Wissenschaft der Logik, Hegel
    puts together quite a good theory. Of course,
    it takes a bit of a thorough reading of Kant
    to arrive at why the Sublime is extra-ordinary, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and besides that Kant and Schopenhauer and so
    on have their "qualitas occultas", which in a
    way are sort of like "hidden a.k.a. supplementary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variables of the real wave equation", has that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a super-classical sort of thinking, that
    Derrida and Husserl very much assert that the
    objects of mathematics or geometry are beyond
    ideal, quite real.


    Axiomless natural deduction


    No such thing again.



    , a spiral-space-filling
    curve as a natural continuum, a Comenius language, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering the fundamental question of metaphysics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and so on: amicus Plato.


    Of course this has a rather perfect philosophy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and theory of science to go along with a merest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teleology, a causality and purpose of things,
    together make a theory where foundation is
    pre-axiomatic, yet entirely logical and mathematical. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The CMBR experiment thoroughly paint-canned
    older Big Bang theories, yet Steady State is
    also unfalsifiable, so, as time goes on and
    the sky survey continues, it makes an older
    Big Bang theory.


    It's a continuum mechanics, ....





    Oh, Hegel has one.

    Hegel has one what?



    Nope, wrong.

    Philosophy had long arrived at that there

    Don't give a damn to what philosophy arrived.
    There is no "axiomless natural deduction".
    Nothing natural in deduction, it's a word
    game and it requires axioms, because without
    them the words are meaningless.
    Yes, right.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgoRuwa2Zcs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E- >>>>>>>>>> POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=5

    The idea of Comenius language is that
    the true words already exist, then we
    discover them, to disclose them, the a-letheia,
    that mathematics is discovered not invented,

    So the idea of Comenius language is hopeless
    wishful thinking.



    No, it's an _ideal_ that we may _attain_ to.

    Yes, it's some wishful-thinking bullshit.


    _Inevitable_ ....


    Ladislav Tondl's a platonist, according to himself, ....



    Would you agree that Tondl's "vote" about
    the semantics and syntax of science, is, weighty?

    That it has, ..., heft?

    Weighty or not, if he's saying the same what
    you are saying it's the same bullshit.


    And Hegel?

    I don't even care. What did he know about
    neural networks and how a human brain works?
    What do YOU know?
    No, the words are not discovered. Neither
    ordinary, nor mathematical. The schema
    which is creating them is a complicated one,
    I admit. For you it may look like some magic.


    They don't care so much about how a brain works,

    Too bad for them.

    Kant and Hegel, they care about how reason works,
    and how rationality works.

    Do you think it is unrelated to the
    previous? Well, no, it is not.


    Then matters of perception and including the
    perception of grammar

    Without considering the decisive
    factor?

    Think back when the world figured to send a
    radio message to the universe, and for it to
    make sense, the only thing they could figure
    out was mathematics, since that makes sense
    to everybody.

    That's what is called "anthropocentrism".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)