Recent content by 2foolish

Yes but all mathematical fields rely on concepts of this is not that, i.e. distinctions on a surface or in an image, they rely on our pre-computed, pre-converted sensory data, which we received from the outside world via the senses. This is my point, what we call math is a re-arrangement of...

You're missing the point "geometry" is a concept that is made of actual stuff and it was derived from somewhere. i.e. geometric figures exist outside of your mind. The information about the subject of geometry/math as we are taught it was conceived by someone else. In other words you didn't...

You said: I'm claiming the opposite, math is an outgrowth of world geometry, when you consider that for you to even have a thought, or a perception, you use binary logic (is a surface there yes or no? did it make contact, yes or no?, etc ,etc) else you could not see, think and move in the real...

My first point was things are made of stuff in the real world, they don't go 'on forever' if you transport infinite numbers to the outside world and unpack them (calculate them fully, instead of just expressing them as stored function). That was my point with pi and making it with real stuff...

"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning."--Einstein Relativity -- gravitational lensing, yes space is geometry, that is a...

You're missing the point, if you were to calculate it out it would continue on forever, i.e. expanded the expression. for instance I can store 0.333 repeated in a computer as 1/3, but that does not make it's decimal expansion any less real. Numerals are a form of object (one-ness) in and of...

No it isn't, you just don't have the research background. You're thinking about one interpretation of boolean logic (the one you were taught), incorrect concepts (the interpretation of logic you were taught) must necessarily lead to incorrect judgments if what was taught was only half the story...

Actually it is, an act of observation is an act of detection, is an act of interaction - contact. So it is logic, you can't detect something is there without logic. You can't escape the functional nature of detection and recursive feedback of the logic of detection. There are different...

logic (countable and uncountable; plural logics) 1. (uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method. Therefore, the scientific method...

Incorrect, surfaces exist "out there", what we were taught as geometry is merely an instance of (reflection of) real world geometric surfaces, etc. Not only that the 'geometry' we were handed was conceived and handed down to us, i.e. we didn't come up with it ourselves, the whole point was to...

The successor function is in fact what boolean logic is, I've been working on this, boolean logic is in fact the 'true math', our higher abstractions (arabic numerals, etc), if you go back to geometry, and represent numbers as a series of lines on a piece of paper (remmeber the 4 sticks then the...

All science begins with thought, I fail to see how our discussion of detection is unscientific. i.e. if you don't think you can see stuff you can't move around objects, if you believe what you are seeing is subjective, you're getting an objective outcome (movement around an object) from a...

The problem is you have it backwards, the bumps are what is real. Your distribution is a reflection (an image, a photograph) of what is i.e. think of the order of operations, photon bounces/is ejected from object (carrying information) hits your eye, eye translates the signal. The signal...

Well here's how I think about it.. imagine you had a piece of paper over two lumps (bubbles) out of the same surface, the surface would be a single surface, and yet you'd have two bubbles (two humps), so we get the concept of object from inequalities, i.e. in this example it is the flat vs...

I wonder that as well. I'd love to look at the research they did. But it goes to show we hardly know anything about the brain, i.e. people can have innate knowledge and abilities and not be able to explain the process of how it occurs. Which rubs right against the scientific method.