In that view we are an incredibly complicated material particle with a mental charge (which, in fact, is an incredibly complex electric charge, running around on the incredibly complex neuronal network of the brain) — Hillary

Both electrical and chemical.

What's paradoxical about the twin paradox? Wouldn't it be a paradox if the twin astronaut returned with the same age to his brother on Earth? — Hillary

:up:

I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

Lack of objective evidence - non anecdotal - I would say. But it's pleasant to think of ectoplasm slowly oozing from the aether.

How can a vase change into a fork? It truly can't, lemme tellya! — Hillary

You, as Creator of your World, have a chunk of modelling clay in front of you. You think, I must have a vase, so you carefully mold the clay into a vase, without pulling out chunks. You are pleased as you examine your creation. But then you think, I would like a fork now, the vase has served its purpose. And you carefully mush the clay into a lump and start anew, fashioning a large fork. And you are pleased with your creation, saying, Let there be a fork!

This is all done as an exercise in topology, a mathematical topic that studies continuous transformations from one thing to another, roughly. You are pleased with this tidbit of knowledge. :smile:

I was a professor of mathematics at a state university for a number of years, but as a graduate student there were courses I didn't like and had to push myself through them. When I focused on my chosen area and delved into research, well, that was fascinating. So even professionals don't necessarily love it all. One of my first grad courses was in foundations, the central area of philosophy of mathematics, and I was happy to get through it, but never returned to it.

But how [do] you glue two points together — Hillary

Gluing schemes in mathematics

I thought I remembered something about gluing in math, so I looked it up. Maybe not precisely what you ask, but interesting nevertheless.

Points come in sizes? — Hillary

In the real nos, no. But a "point" in a vector space or simply space in math frequently is a function of some kind, like a contour in C, and these might have "sizes".

Applied linguistics.

jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere. — Tobias

I gave him as an example of someone who has tried in a fairly sophisticated way to do something new in philosophy related to science, not as one who has succeeded in doing so. When he described coding all facts in the universe I quietly arose from my seat and left the theater. :cool:

Thanks for your summary. What he did and didn't do makes more sense now. :up:

Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. — L'éléphant

Yes. Lines of demarcation are vague.

There are many competent mathematical philosophers reading the forum who aren't necessarily proficient in a system of logical symbolism — alan1000

If you are speaking of philosophers of mathematics I suspect most if not all are conversant with this sort of symbolism. I doubt many read this forum.

Oh, mr. Gill, this is a philosophy forum — Hillary

Yes, you are correct. It's easy to get deflected into science or math. In any event you and I are talking past one another, so I'll cool it. :cool:

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. — Tobias

I wasn't familiar with the math he used but it looked OK as far as I got. Hillary (or a previous incarnation) is a physicist and seemed to think there was some merit there, other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics in the original form. What turned me away was the notion of virtually everything being Turing machines. It seemed more an exercise in CS from my perspective. But I think the author is very smart and could be onto something.

But of all the crimes Trump has committed, his continued refusal to acknowledge the falsehood of his claims about the last election has to be the greatest. — Wayfarer

Holding an irrational belief is not a crime itself, but could encourage a crime.

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

Are "dimensions" perpendicular to one another? Is two dimension perpendicular to one dimension? What is a "large" dimension in this context?

The mathematical description is not too difficult. — Hillary

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3175854/finding-perpendicular-vector-to-an-arbitrary-n-dimensional-vector

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/733264/can-four-lines-be-perpendicular

Orthogonality is a generalization of perpendicularity. When one goes up in dimensions usually one speaks of manifolds, most frequently differentiable or Riemannian manifolds. Inner products arise in connection with orthogonality.

You lost me... Why you want that? — Hillary

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

You need to brush up on what "perpendicular" might mean in higher dimensions, minus the hand waving. How can we understand the notion in our human context.

Back in Euclidean 3-space I see. I want "perpendicular" to refer to an object in 5D relative to an object in 3D.

If this is perpendicular to 3D . . . — Hillary

There you go again.

If the particles are circles on a cylinder, how close can they approach. Whats the distance between two circles? — Hillary

I'm getting dizzy going around in circles. What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help.

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias

Here is An Example on this very forum.

The mystery deepens but the Planck length is made Lorenz invariant! :nerd: — Hillary

My spine tingles at this revelation! I can carry out my experiments on Mars.

Still stumped at "perpendicular" eh? :cool:

Well, on a cylinder the cylindrical length and circumference coordinate lines are locally perpendicular. If you approach the SoL in the length direction, the circle òn the perpendicular dimension doesn't Lorenz contract. — Hillary

And the mystery deepens. No cigar.

Whoops, forgot to read the fine print. Makes more sense. :yikes:

Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it? — Skalidris

Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion.

Physics, e.g., is about "hows" rather than "whys". Philosophy can dabble in the later, but not the former.

What needed is an appreciation of subjectivity and consciousness not as an inner object, datum, substance to be measured alongside outer
objects, but consciousness as interaction. — Joshs

:up:

System, in general, makes an asymptotic approach to all-inclusive oneness, which is to say, our existence is always approaching but never arriving at oneness. — ucarr

The allegory of all I've done in a nutshell.

Because math is, for some strange reason, regarded higher. — Hillary

:up: :cool:

Consider a sequence of an infinite number of dominos representing an infinite number of past events that happened.
The last domino is current event, the present or today.
If you knock down earliest domino so that dominoes start to fall down then today cannot be reached because there is infinite amount of them to fall down until today (present) is reached.
Which is an impossibility — SpaceDweller

As mentioned, no "earliest" domino. But your argument is similar to a math idea I worked on in which earlier and earlier "dominos" do indeed produce a current event.

Same for three dimensions. Ìf,in 6D, three circles are perpendicular to the other three dimension, . . . — Hillary

Define "perpendicular" - remember angles arise in Euclidean spaces.

The question of why there are more women in mathematics than philosophy may be more or less due to there being concerted efforts to encourage women into mathematics and no effort has been made for philosophy (as it is not exactly as highly regarded as mathematics in the public eye). — I like sushi

Which applies to men as well. — Hillary

Not really. The efforts are to get more women/people of color into mathematics. Already too many white guys.

I care! Is it the other way round? — Hillary

What is "true"?

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

Wiki

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate true statements that can’t be justified within the generating system. — ucarr

Not quite, but who cares?

Complex time — ucarr

You want "complex time"? Here's an example: T=t+ib(t). A ballistic missile defines a trajectory that has the following real part - the normal time in flight = t. For the imaginary part, suppose the missile were to hit an imaginary wall at normal time t and drop to the ground. The normal time it takes to drop to the ground is b(t). :cool:

The question of why there are more women in mathematics than philosophy may be more or less due to there being concerted efforts to encourage women into mathematics and no effort has been made for philosophy (as it is not exactly as highly regarded as mathematics in the public eye). — I like sushi

:ok:

Chief Premise – universe is the limit of system — ucarr

A material object = motion without time — ucarr

Space = motion without time — ucarr

No lack of imagination here. Limit of what system? However, these are metaphysical hypotheses that have little bearing on physical reality.

(The 3 extra dimensions being perpendicular to large 3 dimensions). — Hillary

How you do dat? :nerd:

Universe without a beginning means a universe with infinite past events, which means there is no space for new event to add up to infinite number of events. — SpaceDweller

I'm still chewing on this. . . . . :roll:

with some reports saying philosophy is more overwhelmingly male than mathematics. — Paulm12

By 2010 about 30% of mathematics PhDs were women. I would guess that now there may be 35% or so. I'll bet there are far fewer in philosophy.

A look at Harvard's philosophy faculty, including affiliated and post-doctoral: 22.2% women. Tenured faculty: 28.5% women.

As for BA and MA degrees I don't know what sort of work they end up doing. Male or female.

You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine. — Hillary

Silly boy. I spent thirty enjoyable years in that environment. But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates.

Lucifer - that perennially mortifying, theologically disconcerting - and hence well-glossed-over - morsel of god - is both Prince of Darkness and Bringer of Light — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's speculated the the Jews of the time period of Nebuchadnezzar sarcastically referred to him as "Lucifer", one who thought so highly of himself that the sun rose because of him: the Bringer of Light.

At which point Lucifer became synonymous with Satan is possibly a mystery.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

:ok:

One important aspect of academia is that it is a social environment in which researchers converse with one another, sharpening arguments and discarding mistakes. Usually.

Proofs of God are deductive because one has to start already believing God exists. — Jackson

So, if one begins an argument by assuming what is to be proved, this implies that argument is "deductive"? A new and pathetic low on TPF. :roll:

Hegel brought this to my attention — Jackson

My God, man! What else did Hegel divulge to you?