"Explains" is a merry-go-round; as Richard Stafford can surely tell you. And when you exit the circularity of a dictionary, you return to ostensive definitions originating in the comparing and matching of patterns.

"Maths explains" is another merry-go-round; when you say that maths is all you need; that's like saying a dictionary is all you need. But of course that explains nothing, just leaves you with another merry-go-round.

Sure, interesting about how moving charge relates to electric/ magnetic fields and Lorentz transformations; and how "objects" are solutions to mathematical equations. But isn't this just a kind of circular mathematical dictionary?

What does it explain really?

Exit the math-dictionary and you have to return to your relationship to these math-objects.

I am improvising here, only just thought of the idea that math may be like a circular-dictionary; not sure that's fair on math.

I think it must be "as you judge (reality), so you are judged (by reality)."

Until you recall your newborn infancy; you are lacking data regarding God it appears.

When you act, God acts; lets you be, lets you act; breathes you out of the false vacuum.

Why bother imaging etc.? Pattern matching: I found a match between infant knowledge of "....." and what Christianity teaches is "God" ("Love/ Existence").

• Hey Alan - aurino - January 22, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
  • Thank you, Aurino. But Google didn't find it! - dolphin - January 27, 2002 - 03:55 UTC