Alan,

My mother always told me that if I didn't have something nice to say, just keep my mouth shut. I will reply to this note only because you demand it.

>>>do not pre-judge the future of debate>I can think of a few mathematicians I could ask to analyse it>Quoting you: "I am talking about reality. It is an abstract concept".

R1 is an abstract concept. But 'reality' is not necessarily so. To assume that it is, is to "beg the question".>To start equivocating "reality" as the world knows it (what exists) and [an unknown concept you are trying to understand] would be "the fallacy of equivocation". >"That definition though vague is complete because it is defined to be correct" -correct for R1 in abstract hypothesizing perhaps; but not necessarily correct for 'reality' as one must not 'beg the question'. >Vagueness is a constraint.>Further, it is a logically invalid constraint. "I have not the slightest idea" relies on you having the very definite idea that: "I have not the slightest idea". That is, you appear to have a very good idea about your not having the slightest idea! Honesty: Existence is directly detectable.>I see no proof that the fundamental transform exists as you define it.

• Regarding R1 - harvey1 - November 1, 2001 - 16:18 UTC
  • Reality is a collection of FACTS. - alexander - November 1, 2001 - 17:07 UTC
• Excellent! Now we get somewhere, Dick! - dolphin - November 2, 2001 - 10:27 UTC