Session: Jean-Yves Beziau / Graham Priest

0:00 Thank you for your attention and see you in the next lecture. I just have a small remark. I thought you were trying to talk about things when you were saying that using the word cat in two different instances and then saying that, okay, to exchange with places, to get by the dog, to get by the cat, this is of course nonsense because I don't see my cat, this cat. It's being replaced by another one, and whether it's still a gap, you make this metaphysical jump from this specific dynamic instance to the unit's level. Of course, this is what happens when you work with this cognitive style. But there is a metaphysical issue behind it. But I mean, you have a way to identify two different things. They are different. Of course they are different. We can see in some sense that they are the same. Yes, but the difference here is between, it is related to the issue of denotation as well, which is very often not very clear in the literature. Denotation can be used instead of error. Versions from the city of Witten, Wetten, the notation can also imply a depth to confirm this glass are this glass, and in that sense, of course, what we can say is clear. This glass is the same as this glass is clearly known to us. Yeah, but it's exactly, if you have identity, you know, the things are really different. These things are absolute. You cannot identify these if you take absolute invariance. If you take any kind of variation, these two things are different.

2:30 This is a lot in the way of making the classification between the present, objects, and kinds of general matter. Yes, I would say, and this is a very important point, that's why it's so important. Yeah, last one, Bob? The problem is that you only identify two things with a high level of logic. Now, they use an autonomous with a Delwa connection. When you write down this, it just means that there is a Delwa connection. You have a different way to present the thing, but I would say it's a mathematical formulation of the thing. I would say it's a particular case. Exactly. It's the other way around. Especially given what you just said in reply to my question about the lattice theoretic structure of your domain. It seems to me the Gawad Connection is a more fundamental way of thinking, it depends on in which Congress relation you're looking.

5:00 The ability to build the singularity. Having the content to build the singularity. That's why I think, after you can see, you can reconstruct the singularity and make the data in your scan and find if two things can have a shared identity, a shared singularity. I think everybody go back on screen, this is perfect, there is now a small coffee break after this we come back here. Thank you for your attention and see you in the next lecture. Hi, nice to see you again. Cheers. How are you? How was your conference? Which one? The one in Boston? No, it was in Paris, actually. Oh, the one in Roussel? Actually, I've been to another one in Boston since then, that's why I thought you might have been wearing that. The one in Paris? Ah, hang on. You're talking about the conference two years ago that we had?

7:30 Ah, yes, that went very well. You can see... Which, of course, Jean-Yves spoke at. Yeah, that was just over two years ago now. That was October 2005. You can actually see all of the talks and discussions about that on the website. No, we actually had a conference, well I say we, it was only a very small part of the conference, just about three weeks ago, in Paris, at the Art Museum, in honor of Christiane Roussel, who is a very fine French historian. There is on it, with Voltaire and Cartier, which should, I hope, have been added to the website as well. But since then, we've actually just had a meeting in Boston, which I love, in fact, I want to do that, which is why I feel a bit shattered, for a week, with, again, Cartier, Voltaire, and Daniel Kahn, of the Agile Hunger Theorem. Would you comment on that? I agree that they are related. There is a very important part played by the language of quantum morphisms between parts of the diverging. What I could use is a more generalised notion of variables, but a more generalised one has to accept variables as having to be descriptive of variables, things which in some sense are there absolutely in advance to be used. Thank you for your attention. Which propel to the recognition that the sources of the final cosmological structure of nature may then extend from the geometry of a lie, the application of a natural lie, and then still lie back. Which then, I don't mind. I don't mind that. I don't mind that. I don't mind that. So that's why I was kind of disappointed by that.

10:00 The relationship between them is known by name, but if you don't use them enough, the possibility of losing them will be lost at any point in the world. It's necessary to have a very good identification process, or never. In the Witten context, they would be notions like that. Generally, they would always involve some kind of functionality, which is why, as I said, the now I have responded particularly well, because it brings in that additional joint, you know, it brings in the algorithmic function. And one way to be assumed, as Frege has done, is that there has to be a top-elevator, and that is completely the other way around. I mean, that just builds in the assumption that I have a notion that I have, you know, that I have a notion that I have some objects that are made in my domain. I mean, that's, this is the kind of question that my great-grandchildren were already making when I was a child. There's 30, 40 years ago that we're quite still in the process of making separate ones, you know, categories. But the assumption that I've brought in, that I am, you know, taught that some of this, you could put it into a sermon, I don't know about that. You can think of everything in terms of inclusion rather than a function. Why do we assume the whole notion of iterated membership change in a sector just comes out of this assumption that there has to be a fixed and absolute membership relationship, which in turn comes from the idea that there has to be an absolute identity on the land because of the global complex on the land. It's a very, very strong metaphysical restriction. Which, yeah, sure, it's a very strong method of construction, which we don't need. We can do everything in terms of purely factorial construction, out of which the case where things are point-valued, if you like, things where you can think in terms of the metaphysics we fear, the notion of an object that just falls out as a special thing. But you see what the geometrics mean in terms of how much property there is. I guess the only difference is that if one has to be given an advance, you don't have to have any scaling. That's my point. This is why I think that there is such a liberating shift in the spectrum. But there's a big contrast. How do you go about doing that?

12:30 You know what? We've been down. Because the people of the Pac-12 and the Geo-Mission have been selling that for almost half a century. Thank you for watching. Speakers include mathematics, geometry, algebra, analysis, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, physics, quantum mechanics, No, that's true, because it does bring the key to the perspective of the universe as well, and it's the same thing. It does bring the key to the perspective of the universe as well, and it's the same thing. They're still stuck where they were 30, 40 years ago. I mean, the problem we really want to solve is that people are absolutely illiterate. Well, actually, if anybody can talk about metaphysics without talking about quantum physics in this generation, if they do, then what they're pursuing is essentially, you know, It may be a nice quarterly pastime in terms of experience and integration of the world without addressing the issues of physics. Well, I think it's clearly, more and more clearly now, it's the freedom of the conceptual organisation of mathematics that has been for some time now, more and more clearly, coming into focus. And the legacy of Brogan in this respect is just almost impossible to overemphasise.

15:00 I mean, this was a mind of incredible power, I mean, at the level of Newton, and, you know, the way that he reshaped, starting from... ...working out by the program through a description of structure in terms of concepts drawn from homology, thermology, thermosophy, generalism. But above all, involving the kind of factorial machinery that he had built up, originally really just as tools, as machinery, as a freedom of theory. But then, after Kahn's work on the algebra and factor theorem and Lorbeer's work, it became more and more to be recognized that this was actually, metaphysically actually, that this was quite fundamental. It was very useful to the central organisation and to issues of meaning and ontology. It wasn't just an immensely fruitful, fertile machine. I mean, Frege said that we didn't have to pay attention to it because these people were just algebraic. That was absolutely the most wrong-headed perspective because it was actually in algebra as it worked its way out over the following century. Through Tarski, you know, through algebraic logic, and then into vocabulary theory. But the really deepest root to the conceptual issues there, I haven't always used as well. I mean, I'm not trashing, but of course Bremen and Piano were great men, and they had great ideas, but they were not into mathematical presuppositions, which we really now have the tools to be able to stand back from and examine. So what are you even doing, it's not up to you. I've been training. Ah, what time is it now? It's 10am. And where are you going to be? Er, I'm going to be at the University. Oh, we're here, right. Can I cross with you? I've been working there on computational quantum mechanics. Thank you for your attention.

17:30 There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are a number of different fields of study, including mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. I hope you've seen any progress related to Hampton and Cranford in terms of their final results.

22:30 In fact, any attempt to discuss domains in terms of astrophysics is going to bring an enjoyment there. You can't get away from the actual fact that once it starts making its way there, exactly, exactly, exactly, which is all of me, it's completely, it's, which is why the assumption that you've got these jobs will break you in some sense, that there must be a glow in the sky. The top elements of mathematics, like quantum mechanics, geometry, and so on, would be serious. It's incredibly interesting. It makes sense. This is the top of thinking of mathematics, as they did, of membership. It's fundamental. Inclusion is secondary. If you think of inclusion, it's coming out in the same situation. When you do have a class of mathematics, that works. You can interpret things in terms of mathematics. And that's all related to the common space. This is actually a stringent case. This is a very special case. The more fundamental way of thinking about this is that it's a very general case. This will fall out, because this is the case where you have, this will fall out as the case where you have, where your object is outside, where you have decidable. This would be the case where you have a real vehicle, the SED vehicle, which is the object that is set up on a planet by the decidable. No, I can't, no, that's too fast. It can be very precise and specific, in my opinion, so it can be very precise in the case of quantum physics. I'm not saying it's a misnomer. It seems to me that it's a slightly context-sensitive question, and we certainly know it's true.

25:00 I mean, I'm much more likely to just talk business with this rather than talk about what it seems to do to make any sense out of it. You need to think about it. Just think about it. Why assume that inclusion is secondary and membership is fundamental? Well, I think you can prove that. It certainly shows that it's much more fruitful than a bit of an integral relationship between the lattice homomorphism. Or rather, it's the notion that the lattice homomorphism between classes is the main. The picture that's based on that, the fundamental relationship, the fundamental structure, gets right. The technical, cathodic notion of separable and unramified objects, which are basically, basically, those just fall out of a special case. This is precisely where I think it can be made, because it's actually coming from a more fundamental perspective.

27:30 Thank you for watching this video. Thank you very much for your attention and I hope to see you again soon. It is exactly 12 noon by my clock watch phone.