TheHermit wrote:
>The fact that I was able to respond to your requests at all, is
Which I think was, in large part, the point made by the would-be maxim.
Remove the complex interrelationships and you aren't left with much
afterwords but jots on a page.
>because everything "real" has complex interrelationships - which I
>exploited.
>Which brings us back to: "All statements of truth are embedded a
>particular frame of reference from which they cannot be separated without
>becoming suppositions." The "frame of reference" for my "Blue period" is
the
>reality of the universe and the nature of "Blue". It has nothing to do with
>the actual notation used to denote an attribute of blue.
So remove the statement from the frame of reference and have it still make sense, then.
>I am going to try to remove the "frame of reference" e.g. Joules, that you
>so object to, and using just the universe's attributes still provide
>"statements of truth". The "useful" statements I made about "Blue", are so
>tied into the fabric of our universe that no matter where I looked they
>crept out. Few people would recognise the numbers I gave as being "blue"
>without help - a context if you would. Yet if I had removed the "J" from
>this last statement - thus "Blue=4.1684x10^-19" - and seeing as you seem to
>imagine there is something "special" about exponential notation, perhaps
>"Blue=0.000 000 000 000 000 000 416 840", the essential truth remains that
>that energy level represented is only available from a "blue photon".
What energy level? You stopped representing energy when you removed the "J" and if you just wrote "Blue=4.1684x10^-19" on a phsyics test the teacher would mark you wrong. (And for good reason!) Is Blue=0.000 000 000 000 000 000 416 840 mph? Is Blue=0.000 000 000 000 000 000 416 840 grams? Or maybe Blue=0.000 000 000 000 000 000 416 840 parsecs?
You might try breaking down grammer of the maxim before you get too far into this again. What's the subject, for instance? It's a statement about the nature of statements isn't it? Not about the nature of reality. (Which couldn't give a hoot how you describe it.) These particular statements are all meaningless out of context:
>1.41421...
>3.14159...
>6.626...x10^-41
>2.71828...
>0.70711...
>1.618...
>8.3145107...
>
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7...
>1,1,2,3,5,8,13...
>1,2,4,8,16,32,64...
>1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...
The fact that, when put into context, they become very powerful, has very little to do with the nature of those particular strings of numbers. How about:
>1.41421... times the diameter of a circle equals its circumfrence
>3.14159... is the squareroot of 2
>6.626...x10^-41 is the speed of sound in a vaccuum
>2.71828... is the cuberoot of e
>0.70711... miles per hour is the speed of light
And so on...
No longer true or useful statements about anything are they?
>So, if you agree with me that these digit sequences (numbers and
>progressions) are "useful truths" in that they denote certain "special"
>values tied into the fabric of the universe or the nature of numbers,
When in context, yes.
>and that they remain "useful truths" without a particular "frame of
reference",
But did you see the above? I just showed how they weren't at all. That when you change the frame of reference they are no longer useful, in fact, they're just plain dead wrong!
It's _really_ to step out of your context,isn't it?
-Prof. Tim