Pragmatically, it can have meaning. 0 can represent a negative of unclear expectations. If you look at your bank balance and it’s 0, but you expected there to be $1000 in it, you’re not -$1000 but $0. However, if you do double-entry, you’ll see the -$1000 or rather a $1000 deficit in your budget that shows up as $0 in your balance. This can be compared to a $0 where you had no expectations or a $0 where you had $500 of expectations. So in that case, if your lifestyle is such that you have “1/2 of 0″, it is because you have simplified your needs so that that $0 is only 1/2 as bad as it was when you needed more.

Pragmatically, it can have
[read full article]

The notion of objects is a convenience, a shorthand for dealing with realities whose interactions would be too numerous and fast to quantify and track. For any object, you can break it down into constituent parts in some fashion, to layers of operational forces, even to layers of meaning. So, for our convenience, humans talk about objects and quantify and track. -KU 1/1/2019

The notion of objects … [read full article]


There won’t be much expansion around objects, if any, affected by gravity. This is why “space between atoms”, while it seems rational to be expanding – and I thought that too once for a long time – is incorrect. The expansion of spacetime is a reality only at large scales, not in “clumping” areas. The only problem *I* personally have with metric expansion is the use of Standard Candles. But otherwise, it’s solid.

There won’t be much [read full article]


To have a comparison, something is being compared to something else. The system of grammar is a carrier of meaning even regardless of words chosen. I have a bias. I read through Michael Halliday’s “Introduction to Functional Grammar” on a whim one night, cover to cover. Took me about 7 hours, 3 at night, 4 when I got it (it was a weekend). I was fascinated at all of the functional work done by grammar itself at negotiating meaning, long before words and definitions enter the page. Grammar functions at a deeper level than semantics, which is a layer on top of grammar. So, that’s the bias I’m speaking from.

To have a comparison, [read full article]


You’re right, but what have we done with that knowledge? Avoided the necessity of 1st order logic and moved into a whole technological blossoming by that avoidance of 1st order logic and moved onto 2nd order logic in the form of Computational Complexity.

You’re right, but what [read full article]