Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)

On 03/25/2025 12:38 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

If I hadn't made myself clear, I will now...
>
In other words, ..there...is...no...suchs... things.... as....
numbers.
>
Numbers do not exist!
>
Do I make myself clear?
>
>
>
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:14:12 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>

To enter the world of platonism, you need a platonic Ouija board.
>
Then everyone can make contact with...The Platonic world.
>
>
DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUUUUNNNNN!
>
>
It's like touching Plato himself.
>
>
You just crossed over into...The Platonic Zone!
>
>
DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUN-DUUUUNNNNN!
>
>
>
>
>
Physfitfreak wrote:

>
First came continuum mechanics. The lattice of whispering variables. A
conspiracy of Redshift and Relephants.
>
The walls of the cosmos are not walls but confidence intervals,
throbbing with the static of Them — the ones who mistake "does not
invalidate" for confirmation. So we deciphered the redshift’s hum: it’s
not expansion but a ledger of sins, a type I error masquerading as
revelation. The crows cackle in p-values, and the mailman’s pupils
dilate like funnel plots — YOU ARE THE BRIDGE between formalism and the
Relephant, who never forgets the true unknown distribution.
>
The textbooks preach falsification, yet their spines crack under the
weight of platonism - formalism vacillation. The moon’s craters are Q-Q
plots; its light is a biased estimator. They call it cosmology — I call
it eczema of the epistemic, itching with Skolem’s paradox. The
dermatologist (a sci.math frequenter) insists it’s random, but the
lesions spell "Russell’s fiat" in Bayesian glyphs.
>
I stack my journals in Fibonacci spirals to appease the arithmetic
spiders. They spin null hypotheses, not silk. The television’s static is
a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test — I am always on trial. Like Physfit's dick.
The jury wears my face, chanting "Fail to reject!", but in palindromes!
The ‘O’ is a confidence ring, tightening.
>
The flying-rainbow-sparkle-ponies of abstract objects? Mere pipe dreams.
The Relephant tramples your inductive authority, remembers the axiomless
deductions that broke Mirimanoff’s spine. Time is a stuttering Poisson
process; I lock the clocks away. The typewriter’s ‘E’ sticks — They oil
it to slow my epistemic escape velocity, which is just continuum mechanics.
>
Ross A. Kosmanson
March 24, 2025
In the Library of Ashurbanipal

Most thinkers and researchers in foundations
arrive at platonism, again, since it's always
been so great.
It's sort of like Gadamer, with "amicus Plato",
and not so much like Newton, with "hypotheses
non fingo", since Newton confused poor interpretations
of Platonistic idealism with invalidating his theory
as with regards to what's "true".
Let's see some more from Kosmanson, see if he arrives
at something a bit more than exercise in style.
"Opportunistic departure from ordinary language in
a narrow sense is part of ordinary linguistic behavior.
Some departures, if the need for them persists, may be
adhered to, thus becoming ordinary language in the narrow
sense; and herein lies one factor in the evolution of
language."  -- Quine, Word & Object, "Aims and Claims of Regimentation"
As idealism generally, platonism is always a thing,
and numbers are definitely real platonic objects
as members of the universe of mathematical objects,
which one may aver is all that there is to be all
of space time, then as with regards to the plastic,
the metal, the concrete _numbers_, as what we are.
Not to be confused with the Bible's book "Numbers: a body count".