Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation: the Field

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 11:12 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> On Jan 2, 2008 4:49 AM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>     
>>> I submit the following Consultation:
>>>
>>> {{ Does the fact that the Field is geometrically impossible mean that
>>> it doesn't exist? }}
>>>
>>>       
>> Arguments:
>>
>> No one (including the Referee) is required to create an accurate
>> geometric display of the Field. The Referee's public display of the
>> field can be an approximation; All other public displays are
>> approximations of the data they represent.
>>     
>
> The display isn't my issue.  The platonic description of the Field is,
> in my opinion, impossible without positing a non-trivial and
> heretofore (to the best of my knowledge) nonexistent form of
> non-Euclidean geometry where there's something called a "square" that
> can be used to tile the surface of a torus.
>
>   
You can tile a sphere with squares, from the perspective of the surface
of the sphere they are square, from the perspective of an observer they
are curved. In a Field Match participants exist upon the field,
therefore the squares are square, even if they're saddle-shaped so as to
tile the torus.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss