.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … if “numbers“ is “sufficiently explicit to you” when referring to what others call rational numbers, then there is no point to talk about mathematics that involves irrational, imaginary etc numbers »

That’s correct, George. Mathematics is a specialist language. There are a multitude of specialist languages. That is precisely why we need a common language so that we can all communicate together. It is also why it is important that we avoid polluting the common language with specialist terms.

It is in this sense that my phrase “…'reality' seems sufficiently explicit to me” should be interpreted.

It would be stupid of me to object to researchers developing specialist terms. Words, signs and images are the vectors that allow ideas to evolve and progress in a process of creative imagination. They are entirely dependent on each other and cross-fertilize each other.

I consider that the essential characteristic of “reality” is “objectivity”. If you open the door to “religious belief” you pollute it with all sorts of ideologies, superstitions, animist religions, voodoo, black magic, etc. and create multiple “subjective realities”, which, of course, is an oxymoron. It is no longer the common term, “reality”, that we all understand and accept.

It is a regression, not a progression.
.

« … I take it as a compliment that you put me in the same category of unjustified users of the term as Einstein and others …»

I was not comparing you to Einstein the brilliant theoretical physicist, George, but to Einstein, the - I regret to have to say - not so brilliant semanticist.
.

« I certainly agree that we should leave it at that …»

I'm afraid that was not my suggestion. I was just quoting one of my favourite authors.
.

« …and also agree to disagree on what we believe about reality and existence. »

Are you sure we disagree on that, George ? The conclusion of your article, “The nature of reality”, that you wrote in 1012 is still echoing in my mind - quite insistantly in fact.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>The conclusion of your article, “The nature of reality”, …<<

You mean that I see it as an enigma, that common sense is sufficient for “a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life” but not sufficient to answer the question of the nature of reality, (even when reduced to what a science can have access to)? Then indeed, we have an agreement. And I can only add that it is even more of an enigma, that common sense cannot resolve, when one does not believe that science and maths can access all what could be called reality independent of us.

For the third time: please let us leave it at that.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote:

« “That’s where the sons raise meat, and that’s the reality.” It can also be where the sun’s rays meet. That’s also the reality »

I see you’re a man of many facets and am not surpsised – a diamond, perhaps ?

Let’s listen to Plutarch :

« The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled »

and again :

« What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality »

But at this late hour, I think I’ll take his advice and head for beddy-byes …

« All men whilst they are awake are in one common world: but each of them, when he is asleep, is in a world of his own. »

.

Dear Banjo,

Just finished Schama’s “A History of Britain 2 1603-1776 The British Wars” Good sentence in it. “Paranoia is the oxygen of revolution." The particular paranoia in the Glorious Revolution was the unreasonable fear of Catholics. I could add a couple of lines concerning the codification of statements of religious belief and the activities of Oliver Cromwell.

Dogma is a bitch.

Cruel Cromwell slew slews.