On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Robert Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:30 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > I would say our concept of "zero" and "one" has been far from static > through time and no all ethnicities share precisely the same meanings. > > I never said these elements were invariant over time and I for sure wasn't > talking about "meanings". To be clear, except in the rare case when a > discussion is actually about "meanings", no one is ever talking about > "meanings", at any time, they are talking about "ideas". To not understand > that, at all times, leads to a "what is is" waste of time. > > If what you mean by X changes over time, that's tantamount to saying "a changing idea of X".
The meaning of "gravity" was changed within the context of general relativity, i.e. "the idea of gravity" changed from what it had been, in Newtonian mechanics.
Your shrill protest that we're talking about *ideas* and not *meanings* is mere quibbling.
> In mathematics, at some stage. any civilization will get to point, line, > plane and space. These are not conclusions, they are elements. They distill > from the process of tuning into this order of the universe we are talking > about. And the distillation gets more and more finer and granular as time > marches forward. > > So what about all those civilizations that never "got" to these ideas.
"These are not conclusions" certainly applies to your wild speculations with no basis in evidence.
Spooky Greek metaphysics has its "dimensionless points" and "infinitely thin, infinitely extensive planes" but I don't think civilizations which fail to embrace our concept of "dimension" (a moving target in any case -- witness "fractional dimensions") are doomed.
"Height width and depth are the three spatial dimensions". I think a high civilization could get by quite well without swallowing that pig-headed steaming crock of BS (showing my bias again). We have, and we live with the consequences. May others be spared.