Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 03:59:03 +0000 Subject: Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math References: <67E23BA4.7FC7@ix.netcom.com> <64n4uj10rar2j35rp2pe4k7128bkl9c456@4ax.com> <7tadnTJGQpDgS3_6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 20:58:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <9hSdnZLP8KEa5n76nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 4043 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-y71Tw1ttOz0mmxsVjO1Yq3FlpdKW0Vy5iUtPJTCt5lvVL/tKAOabLYgHmTJUcIGOvgO9bFhJNrHVWvW!PyzhJJ3UI4lJPdfZk3uv4MSnwhVWCfnjPMWcXcyzV6zFI+iqLT7g83xWt2Z1NrjgWdJ/BckPoAw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 189366 On 03/25/2025 07:34 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 03/25/2025 07:22 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/25/2025 09:14 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> 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 >>>> 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". >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks GG. Comment on "axiomless natural deduction" and "axiomless >> geometry". >> >> >> >> When discussing "axiomless natural deduction" and "axiomless geometry," >> it's important to clarify what "axiomless" truly means in these >> contexts. It's rarely the case that these systems operate with >> absolutely no foundational principles. Instead, the focus is on >> minimizing or shifting the emphasis away from traditional axiomatic >> frameworks. >> >> Here's a breakdown: >> >> Axiomless Natural Deduction: >> >> Shift from Axioms to Inference Rules: >> Natural deduction systems prioritize inference rules over >> axioms. This means that logical reasoning is primarily driven by how >> conclusions are derived from premises, rather than relying on a set of >> pre-established truths (axioms). >> The "natural" aspect refers to how these inference rules aim to >> mirror the way humans naturally reason. >> Emphasis on Assumptions: >> Natural deduction heavily utilizes assumptions, which can be >> introduced and later "discharged" during a proof. This allows for more >> flexible and intuitive reasoning. >> >> While some foundational logical principles are inherent in the >> structure of the inference rules, the explicit need for numerous >> traditional axioms is reduced. >> >> Contrast with Hilbert-Style Systems: >> >> This approach contrasts with Hilbert-style axiomatic systems, which >> rely heavily on axioms and fewer inference rules (often just modus >> ponens). >> >> "Axiomless" Nuance: >> It's more accurate to say that natural deduction minimizes the >> role of explicit axioms. The structure of the inference rules themselves >> embodies fundamental logical principles. >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========