Comments by "Lawrence D’Oliveiro" (@lawrencedoliveiro9104) on "Group theory, abstraction, and the 196,883-dimensional monster" video.

18:01 RIP John Conway, sadly a victim of COVID-19.
456
Stories have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Reality doesn’t.
407
@maxlife459 It’s not clear that the universe has a beginning or an end.
145
6:35 Specifically, linear momentum is a dual to symmetry of the physical laws in position in space. Angular momentum has a different dual: symmetry of physics in orientation in space.
5
@ekki1993 “descriptions of reality are not reality” ... isn’t that just your description of reality?
3
How is that supposed to rhyme, though?
2
@ekki1993 Are numbers only one fiction? Or are they more than one? In other words, which “fictitious” number describes the reality of what you claim?
2
@ekki1993 “Literal wooden chair” is just another concept, though.
2
@ekki1993 But that’s just your concept.
2
@ekki1993 “Obtuseness” is just an other concept, though.
2
@ekki1993 It means the concepts in your discussion are just fiction.
2
@ekki1993 You were the one trying to claim numbers were fictitious; you tell me.
2
@ekki1993 “If you go too far into their definitions you'll find nonsense, not because the universe is intrinsically nonsensical (it may be, but for other reasons), but because your initial axioms made that nonsensical behaviour appear.” Does that apply to the axioms of your argument as well?
2
@skyjack1 Reductio ad absurdum -- if the assumption someone is making leads to a contradiction, that must mean the assumption is wrong.
2
@nadarith1044 So if you cannot find something in reality that intrinsically represents the reality of reality, then does that mean reality is not real?
2
@ekki1993 A concept less real than the numbers which you said were “fiction”?
1
@ekki1993 Are you conceding that point, then? Because the second paragraph depends on it.
1
@ekki1993 There is a number of such concepts, though. Is that number a fiction, or not?
1
@nadarith1044 Go look up reductio ad absurdum , and maybe you will understand the point I was making.
1
@nadarith1044 But you were the one who introduced that phrase, not me. Therefore it is your argument that is at fault, not mine.
1
@nadarith1044 Like I said, you were the one trying to make that argument, not me. So any deficiency in it is a deficiency in your argument, not mine.
1
@nadarith1044 You were trying to make an argument about the unreality of numbers. I merely pointed out how vacuous that was, by showing that your argument could be used to prove the unreality of your argument itself.
1
@nadarith1044 No “other guy” brought in the term “intrinsically represents”, it was you. And it was you who then said the term was an “oxymoron”. But since it was part of your challenge to me, it therefore follows that your challenge falls flat on its face. QED.
1