On 11/04/2024 03:18 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
On 11/4/2024 5:41 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 04.11.2024 um 23:36 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>
Ross, that post, like so many of yours, displays only local coherence.
Each sentence looks like it would make sense if only one were to read
the
surrounding context. On doing so, no overall sense is to be found, just
a vague drift from allusions to topics, never quite settling on anything
definite.
>
A floating stream of thoughts (sort of).
>
I have a theory, not confirmed by RF,
that Ross is conducting a brainstorming session,
in which credit is given for _creativity_ or
of the sheer number of ideas thrown out,
and not for any sort of thread tying them together.
>
As I say, not confirmed.
But my theory comforts me.
I don't try to connect Ross's posts to my posts.
He presents a buffet.
Take what you like, leave the rest.
>
>
Hm. Yet, I see it as "all one theory", ..., then that
indeed there's always hoped to be "something new", in
every post, something new to this conversation or never
written before here - which seems not impossible in a
tour of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Working Museum,
of Mathematics", if though I'm more interested in
the central exhibits.
One thing I talk about in my podcasts is, "ontological
commitment", vis-a-vis, "mathematical platonism", and,
"nominalist fictionalism". So, the idea of that is
from the comment "take it or leave it", though, that
the idea is that one can only take or leave the entire
thing. So, on the one hand, that's mathematical platonism,
because, it has to be right, you can take it or leave it,
and it will be there when you get back. On the other hand,
it's nomimalist fictionalism, you can take it or leave it,
and you can pick it up and put it down, that in the case
of being wrong, the thus ontological commitment to something
wrong wouldn't have introduced to the entire notion of an
ontological commitment, being wrong. Yet, it needn't be
that way, because the entertainment of theory, lives in
an own space of words, a model of personal theory. So,
it's OK, ontological commitment, and ontological freedom,
and ontological independence, you can pick it up and put
it down and take it or leave it. The idea though is that
mathematical platonism will be there when you get back.
Then, with regards to nomimalist fictionalism, is much like was
mathematical platonism, that what used to be the deemed
a subjugation to mathematical platonism and dogma, has been
replaced by making everybody subjugated ultimately to nominalist
fiction, which, has got nothing. So, while on the one hand
the nominalist fictionalist is part of ontological independence
and ontological freedom, mathematical platonism is part of
ontological commitment. Yet, mathematical platonism can
provide ontological commitment to ontological freedom.
So,
pick it up or put it down,
take it or leave it,
mathematical platonism:
will be there when you get back.
Anyways I have an agenda and all one theory.
Then though I do find that often Burns just balks,
yet you will find I address Burns' points saliently,
with regards to my wider intent. Then, in a forensic
sort of the argument, I do not drop arguments.
They flow, .... The slate flows.