FBM wrote:10 minutes and counting. Helluva piss.

Okay.
@Robert S
You may be unsurprised to know I know about Indra's net. It's a great concept. However you seem to be saying that even if it is a map, it is only a map of our internal processes, in so far as we are mapping perceptual data along with inference and bias which are products not of external reality but our consciousness. That such "truths" as the theorem are objective as a function of our minds rather than external physical reality. That the platonic forms are archetypes, products of neurology
Is that about it?
(We should get into a convo about mysticism sometime, perhaps this is going there anyway, we shall see.)
@MiM
You seem to be taking the opposite view in which the symbols and functions that we have discovered are axiomatic at a fundamental level. 1+1=2 even without a consciousness to know it does. In some way then they are objectively as real as a mountain, even more so because they exist in some form which is eternal, grandfathered in to the very material itself.
Would that be fair to say?
@ Straight Lines in nature.
It's a digression. Mathematics does not deal with nature as I already pointed out.It deals with the mean, the average and the ratio. It deals with platonic forms, the perfect circle, square, the cube. These mathematical concepts are describing something with form and function. Is there or was there a dimension where perfected platonic forms exist, even if only for a nanosecond at the start of the universe, an objectively perfected state that is like a wire frame over which matter and entropy has it's way?
Or is it that we are developing better control over nothing but our perceptual abilities?
On the face of it it seems like a case for "soplipsism or God" but nothing so simple would be anywhere near an answer, I think. Not that I know.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man