Philosophical Speculations

Constructibility vs. non-constructibility is far from arbitrary distinction for mathematicians like Brouwer, Weyl etc., and in case of Hilbert, his "solution" was totally arbitrary axiomatics, which broke the communicability of mathematics. Here's a very nice article by a member of this f...

I also don't see anything gained by saying that pi is not a number. How else to mark the halfway point around a circle? I suppose I should ask first if all the irrationals in his scheme are not numbers? What about e, or i? In measurement, "pi meters" is just as precise as "1 meter&qu...

Yes, I fully agree that a sound formal foundation needs to be fully supportive of constructive play and work, the manipulation of symbols and their inter-relations in a meaningful way. The area of rationally computable discrete mathematics is of course not excluded, it can be derived from this foun...

Dynamic tetralemma: 1) increases < 2) decreases > 3) both increases and decreases <> 4) neither increases nor decreases >< Another shorthand for variety of such interdependent verbs is more-less. 3rd lemma connects with notions of interval, duration, and self. With open interval that continues beyo...

SanteriSatama wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:59 pm
Dynamic tetralemma:

1) increases <
2) decreases >
3) both increases and decreases <>
4) neither increases nor decreases ><

Another shorthand for variety of such interdependent verbs is more-less. \
...

I have concerns, but will start another thread.

It is there. It just is not made up of mindless matter. It is made up of perceptions. So what exactly is there? By this do you mean it exists, it’s just generated inside my consciousness? I'm a little confused at this one Not surprising. Read Why Materialism is Baloney for an answer. Or you might l...

I feel like it is not most people who believe the "what is true for a person, is true for them"...most (in my experience at least) seem to think that people can't have "true-for you" but rather only "just true" when it comes to ontology. Sure many believe one man's tra...

On the other hand you seem to have experienced/intuited/‘had revelation of’ a conception of god that’s more like mine, but I can’t see what the universe is in your view, without introducing a dualism. I guess I can’t quite grasp your tetralemmic polarity. No special experience on my part. I define ...

It is not that we should find them all true, but more so that they are all accepted as that person's truth, since all we can know is our own truths emergent from our own experience. Then that's just tautologous: what a person believes to be true, is what is true for that person. Meanwhile, I consid...

I guess the answer is that I don’t think god has thoughts as we would conceive of thoughts, he just knows. For God, being simple, an act of knowing is an act of thinking is an act of loving, etc. Here is a mystic's description of divine thinking. Obviously, way beyond what we can think. At the deep...