FW Lawvere (contd.)

0:00 Two kinds of, just when I pass them again, two kinds of negation.

2:30 It's a ring theory. It's like four lines. In other words, it amounts from the series of rings into the series of numbers. And typically, again, typical theory of physics is the speed background and the number of parts. And the speed background is just one set of numbers. But then there's the column theory. You don't have to use all math on the site. You can find very, very thin categories of math onto the site that are still available.

5:00 Namely, you can always find the categories with no end in mind. I didn't see any site, any Jordanian couple had a site in the sense that when a site runs in the category, it starts with, you know, mass intersection, and then it goes in with no endomorphism. The numeric figures have no self-intersection, they're only, you can compare them with mass between different ones, you can't, you know, there's no need to confront it with... So there's no need to confront it with a non-trivial one-year review or anything like that. And then the opposite happened the next day. Because I've been saying, you know, that if you did have a study, you would have to have written something. That's why I haven't. That's not what I'm going to tell you. I thought I could have written something. I'm just so confused. One that's a full question anyway. I don't know what's the difference. There was a discussion of this in Mount Seed in the part of the capitol.

7:30 Thank you for watching. In the field of science, I did a little bit of the same work, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, super, In the last few years, people have learned how to do that. Speakers include mathematical physics, geometry, algebra, analysis, quantum mechanics, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, Well, in the oversimplified, in the super oversimplified, the identical enemies. Well, as my friend Mike, who we met recently when he was in London, there's got to be possibly the worst film I have ever seen in my life. It was so grotesque. It was actually quite comical. It was so awful. It was very interesting.

10:00 Thank you for your attention. My friend Mike, who you met briefly when you were in London back in 2003, who is a bit of a Trump guy, Grant, he was a great guy, he does get some things right, and he wrote rather an interesting piece for our Gretchen Cameron Wars now, shortly after the, that's right, about the surge, the first paragraph. This passage from Thucydides, he describes how in the Ecclesia, they had either to cut their losses and pull out or... They had to kind of, you know, double up and double off, and of course they decided to double up, so they sent out a further, a second exhibition. And then, this is Serge. And he just points out that, and... The citadins mentioned in the last book, The Basquiat and the Sanctificate, that in the debate in the Trinidad it was quite clear that the Athenian Empire in the West had been established next on the list. The analogy is, fairly, you know, does one need to underline the moral? Thank you, sir. That was a very nice talk. I certainly want to hear much more about what you've done. This talk about cosmology. Well, I've learned from you. I think it's one of the things you have taught me very well. I only wish I'd learned the math as well as I've learned this one.

12:30 How does a clock count? And I was about 25 minutes in with this guy. His name is J.P. ... It was one of these big audiences, over a hundred people were there, which we're talking about the history of astronomy. He was given a very, very, very light way to sort of really canter through non-standards, by cosmologists that reject the standards of the Big Bang. His own position, pretty clear from the beginning, was that he also rejected the standards of the Big Bang. And there are perfectly sensible things to say about the flimsiness of the evidence of the red checkers at Connors, but I learned, one thing I learned from this talk was that there was a French journalist who predicted back in 1896 and a couple of Swiss astronomers in the early 1930s who predicted the background temperature of the interstellar atmosphere. This is a separate issue, but this is a point about the background. All of the people in the Big Bang camp who predicted the consistency of the background radiation got it wrong by, in most cases, at least an order of magnitude. For instance, Ken Zayas, who is the guy who got the Nobel prize at Wilson, who detected, who had been able to predict, who was a pupil of Saturn. ...was convinced that they'd find it at around 50 degrees in the blue down. And none of the people using the Big Bang model got it.

15:00 They all predicted it must be above 7 or 10. Initially, I slightly over-estimated it. About 3.5 in confirmation. And even that was the alternative. There's the ambient temperature in the background and the intermediate, the problem of starlight, to within one decimal point, the crack figure, as far back as the 1890s. Well, no, the 1933 prediction. I think Guillaume got it within about three minutes. Guillaume, Guillaume. I made a good second note. Very interesting. So this was extremely interesting. And he also made the point that all of these people were sensitive. I've been very, very, very, very, very, very, They weren't always very confident theoreticians, but they were very good at science. And that was the thread which ran through his talk. He didn't mention that, in fact, until I asked him a question about physics. And then he gave his reply about SQL, and he was speaking very rapid French at the time, which is not exactly what he said. The gist of his answer was, well, I didn't mention Segal because I wanted to concentrate on the people who had strong observational reasons for his belief in the respect of mathematics, and I don't really know that. Well, Segal was clearly a prologue in that regard. No, no. Um, I agree. I mean, I have a very tough life.

17:30 I used to try to go to school. He gave the talk, and I was so interested, I actually asked him for a couple of months afterwards. He didn't realize that he had it. Gosh, I would have gotten into conversation with him about Hopper theory. I really was impressed by this guy, but I had no idea until the second that he had done work in logic. He never mentioned that, very modestly, he never mentioned that at all. But clearly he knew a lot of math, and he was very clear about his ideas. And he had mentioned precisely that he thought he had a bit of a hard-on to address, his evidence against the quadratic, but because of that, frankly, I don't really want to get into further arguments, and he seems to be generally sympathetic, you know, certainly to people like Al Spenner, which I became a little bit suspicious about him. Well, there are two points. The first was about...

20:00 No, no, no, not quite, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, But he said that Lemaître had tried to stop Pius XII from making this announcement and sent a letter to Rome saying, you know, please tell the Holy Father that we're not going to get into this problem. And then later, Lemaître was announced and they said that Pius XII... ...that it would be very incompetent to describe his grasp of the physics of art, but Henry thought about it because this guy Petter was quoting that with great approval, and I actually think it's a witty lie, you know, his physics is mediocre, but his physics is abysmal. Now, hang on a minute, what's the problem with our race about? You know, if you think about that remark, the sub-wide institute has suggested that somebody believes that. There were two criticisms of Pius, the one that he was a media physicist, less damning than the one that he was a philosopher. And then, it started, this is about Final Lessons, which then he started with the crazy Vizier. Vizier, Jean-Pierre Vizier, the guy at the Trump Center who was the guy who was de Broglie's student and then did work with Bohm. Well, basically, there was a small positive in the explanation, which he said was all very, very high standard, which covered everything.

22:30 It didn't really just become a list of numbers. I was a little bit worried about the quality of the phrases. I was happy to say that, having said that, it was in the families of people who were critical, and they got the, let's say, they got the evidence much, much closer. So that really was interesting. This is certainly what we're going to do. But I have a little, I have my suspicions about that. Of course, at the same time as Pius was coming out with the behind-the-scenes pronouncements, it was made for a big bang of homology, but of course, even in the Soviet Union, there was Abbas and other people who were taking up positions very strongly against him, and that caused all those ideological reasons, and it was clear that this was not Pius.

25:00 It's clear, you see, that Siegel and a few others represent the main breadth of the whole, ah, it's not like I came up with it, the whole astrology of one day. And everybody in the chair, it's like a building, it's like a building. It's like a catamaran sitting neatly in the sun. There are so many different types, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, from the roots, It's just like the Habsburg or Elizabeth Earth, you know, resident quarter like John Wilkinson. So Jeff has started, probably started before that, with the idea of taking Witten as the leading expert, that we have to accept whether his reasoning is rigorous or not. Well, I was thinking I could get the finale right, but I think it was after MacLean's thought was that MacLean's defense of science against physics, that he would cut off an appendix. You know, the National Science Foundation represented the first in that. Oh, who of course was one of the chief proponents of it. Was what? Was he one of the chief proponents of this? Jaffe? Quinn? No, I don't know. I think it would be what? It would not be what you think it would be. In any case, we hope you have a good evening and a good birthday at the MISRAM, the MSF. The category theory is really helpful.

27:30 I really wanted to bring this together. When I had my... Well, I think it was announced that Peter McBride was going to be funded again. I lost my brain. Peter probably lost his brain. I don't know. All the Americans are going to tell you. And... I hope you enjoyed this video, and I'll see you in the next one. I have my own address, you know, I have the greatest place to stay in Venice, that's in Texas. I'll accept it when we rent the apartment and it's a lot cheaper. I don't know about it, but I saw him look up the website. It's not hard to find him if you get the name. Was there any official pre-ex? I think when they try to engage in a conversation, you need to see when they perceive it. I was actually conscious of it all, but it wasn't as good as the surgeon's results. And, um, he's right. No, MacLean came around. He came around, yeah, but anyway. Thank you. Great lady. Oh my God. Thank you for your attention.

30:00 You'd really have to believe that it was bad to protect a man in his own name, you see, for literary notice. You know, one would have hoped that he would have the guts to say something in his lifetime, not to wait until he was really despicable. I asked Lisa about this, she didn't even remember. She didn't think she knew about it. I don't know exactly what it is. But you see, these are threats to the uniform view of this establishment which gives the correct interpretation of the stars to guide our actions. And I'd like it to be the fun. Obviously, I'm trying to guide our action. Not only were this previous program about Greece a new thing in the earth, interesting in the earth, because in the earth, as high as democracy has been met, so has the fear, the fear of the power. Disney's film was about a black hole. And now there's a sitcom on U.S. TV called The Big Bang Theory, where there's some geeks, obviously geek types, who have trouble with sex and all this. I mean, the title of it is, and they talk about this, Big Bang, Black Hole, and they plagiarize three theaters, every week, seven times. And we have to accept, you know, the fact that we have to have preventive wars against mathematics, against theories, and we have to have preventive wars whenever there's an atrocity story, you know, and people should vote for it, even if they don't quite vote enough. You know, the whole idea that democracy requires an informed public. An informed public. There are various kinds of informants.

32:30 Saturation, by the word saturation, or there is the idea that every citizen is a scientist, that every citizen has the ability to look for reality. And this is what the new math education categories as a guide for all of our key means. That's what's wrong with it. That's why it has to be the same. It has to be stopped at the stop, yeah. It's an obvious threat, like what you've called with the pony, for instance. You see what I'm saying? The disinformation on the level of lies, the disinformation on the philosophical level could be the same as well. You live by buzzwords anyway. You live by calculus of interest. Calculized prestige is based on a number of buzzwords. No, and truthfulness. There are many different kinds of mathematics, but only a few of them are known to the public. There are many different kinds of mathematics, but only a few of them are known to the public. There are many different kinds of mathematics, but only a few of them are known to the public. There are many different kinds of mathematics, but only a few of them are known to the public. There are many different kinds of mathematics, but only a few of them are known to the public. But then there's also the fact that you can see that these people have been called unfashionable in the past.

35:00 It's pretty good isn't it? It comes from Alexandra. He's a cop, but his wife is not here tonight, but his wife and daughter both work here. She's really lovely, isn't she? No, I'm pretty clear as to what's going on. It's very depressing. I hadn't realised that they deliberately pulled the rug out from there under, you know, under the category theory at that time. It's really significant. Yeah, well, it just has to be in connection with the McLean struggle against the Jackie Quinns of anti-rigger, anti-proof. There was a conference around that time when I went down to Sicily to report which Angus spoke. The conference was entitled something like this, The End of Truth.

37:30 There were a brace of set parrots down in the hall, and Angus did a great job. The first of all was putting Godel firmly in place and secondly in telling them that no, no, proof has not come to an end. He didn't make himself popular with the other people there. The trouble with McLean's title is Fighter of Physics. Yeah, it had to be enough, but he could have said it's Fight of Rock-Minded Physics. Yeah, I mean, they were... In fact, it's precisely because of Physics. They were in there for slandering the majority of physics. Well, a better title would have been for serious physics. Actually, very often. I don't know about the... That was in the American Mathematical Party's political report. In that case, yes. That's why I can mention that they do allow you to choose your own time with them, don't they, I guess. Anyway, he wasn't really talking about physics. No, no. It was just a bit of a... Yeah. ...psychological phenomenon. Absolutely. It was an attack on readers. Yeah, that was a slightly unfortunate time. When I was in Florida in 1990, I interviewed him in San Sebastian, and I remember... Oh, yeah. ...he talked about how to have a permission. He really talked about... Well, you know. He could have been better at any of that, and for longer, but of course he was very good at making up rhymes, making up poetry, and I remember he made up a rather good squib, I can't remember the whole of it now, but the first lines were, physicists are too much smithers, to fit the mind of it, which I wish I could remember how it went on.

40:00 Well, I really, really like my son. Yeah, yeah. In 1989, so the... I've got all the recordings about him. There's something about Witten there. No, I think he'd have come out the previous year. I think he came out in 1989, or possibly earlier that year in 1990 itself. I think he was in the AM, I suppose, in 1990. Same time that you invited me. A little bit later, about a year later... What do you think? No, that was a year earlier, actually. That was 89, but I invited you actually. I actually invited you in 88, but you couldn't come because you were in Australia with Max Kelley. I actually invited you in 88, but you couldn't come until the following year. I must confess I was really very nervous. Oh, I know you were, because George Rousseau told me, in all frankness, when he was here in Paris, sitting actually exactly where you're sitting. Well, it wasn't actually next table, but we had dinner in this restaurant two years ago. And I think he must have decided I'm a good guy after all. Would you like coffee? Yes, please. Good coffee. Yeah, he said that he had actually... I can't remember how you did it. You're a smart guy, though. No question about that. I mean, not just when it comes to topology, but you got me. I can't remember now how you did it. It must have been sometime in 1988. It was after I invited you, but before you agreed to come the following year. I was invited to a meeting in Leicester, and I can't remember now, it was a logic meeting, and I'd never met him of course, I didn't know he was a friend of yours, and he just introduced himself to me, and we went off and had a couple of beers, and I was there for about three days, and he just mainly was asking what I thought about the talks and the meeting, and then we got on top of it.

42:30 And I got into a bit of an argument with him actually about Northern Ireland because at that time I had quite a strong position about it. I took a position which I now recognise as completely wrong, but it was a sensible one. I was quite a strong supporter of the BICO, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I-C-O, B-I- The first time I'd really come up against somebody who was clearly not a prospect and not some kind of, dare I say, ultra-leftist idiot, who was actually coming up with really serious and hard, good arguments as to why the Beecher Line was all wrong. And I have to say, I went away and thought about it very seriously for the next couple of weeks, and then I went back a bit more to George, and anyway, put it this way, a month later, I was no longer a Beecher support, and he never mentioned, of course, anything at the time. It was only later, of course, when I met him, you know, at Coma, about two years later, with you, that I knew that you were. Or perhaps it was that, did he come to Bangor? Did he come to Bangor? I don't think he did come to Bangor. No. No. Well anyway, it was only later that I realised that, you know, I knew he knew you, but that was all right, no idea. But I realised, and realised even more when I was talking to him a couple of years ago in Paris, what a very fine, very very fine political intelligence he had. I remember him telling me again, all those years ago, in Leicester, I thought he was an

45:00 No, I was fascinated by him, but I, of course, he only told me two years ago here in Paris that he'd been put up in order to give the complete term of this weird guy, Michael. And he said, and he said, he said this with a twinkle in his eye, so I'm not sure if it's true or not, but he said it in a very, very better way. He said, started you very carefully, but I told him, you weren't, you weren't too, you weren't, you weren't too revolting across. He obviously satisfied you because you did come to Cambridge and which was a great Thank you for watching. We have the evening sessions and the discussion, and it was where Colin and John and others gave their papers in Wolfson, and that was where I recorded George.

47:30 All of the above. You want to stop back. Yes, that's right. And therefore, a scientist, and therefore, we're interested in getting Charles around. Very good. Very good. I couldn't have both. No, he's realized that within five minutes. He's a very good debater indeed. He's looking quite quietly now. Yeah, yeah, and in fact we spent a very pleasant evening just outside, haven't been to visit him in a long time.

50:00 That doesn't sound like it's any kind of coincidence to me, any more than Miles Tierney's son. I regard it as one of the most important pieces of information you've ever given me, because the more I have tracked back, the clearer the end thing was clearly.

57:30 I get the gist of the thing tomorrow to talk to Mark that I gave there back in June, the one that I missed, the one where he talked about Carta and this shiny new gadget that he's using to help the key to the universe.

1:00:00 The reason was that Mark, why Mark's talking about it. This is in his N-category cafe, if you want to read it, it's a good piece of paper. The math petition. Moral bias. Oh, you didn't understand, no. It's the same idea. I'm afraid that something that Martin Harlan said last summer, he blessed the world with a lot of good things and a lot of good things and a lot of good things.

1:02:30 There's just such a thing as moral proof that when you think about it, it's basically what we've got here is the kernel of the world of mathematics and science, which we arrive at the end of by a very dynamic process, and we base our proofs rigorously on the actions of the definition. That's the part that they want to gesture to. Remember the pretext that's emphasizing reason. They're emphasizing National Sovereignty Theology, you know, that's destroying their true creativity, their beauty, their intelligence, projection, projection. By the way, I think she wrote many of these in Wikipedia. Half-sad.

1:05:00 Yeah. So everything is a moral truth instead of a truth. And we should learn to judge the truth. We should learn to love these half-stated or half-truths. Whatever. I did look through her paper, but I must admit I skimmed through it and thought, you know, there's nothing here. But you're right, I should, as usual, you're absolutely right, I should have studied it much, much more. But I do think I... You just saw one or two of these things and you thought it was just some stupid person or some random... Well, that was my impression. Cambridge and Harvard. Cambridge and Harvard. I'd say down in Madrid this last week, and I am quite convinced it was dangerous.

1:07:30 Very hard. And the trouble is philosophers listen to this and they think they've understood it. That's the problem. I'm not in charge of whatever happens. The problem is, I mean, I'm sure there are... Well, this was a philosophy seminar. There are not many people attending. I'm sure there are many philosophers interested in this, too. There are far too many. That's the problem. To come back to the same point, in order to have democracy mean that people vote, you've got to have an informed public. So if you're that preventive in getting a scientist informed, which is scientific thinking, that may be very extreme about it, you see.

1:10:00 You could tolerate such extreme academic repetitions if we used them, maybe. The point to realize is that she has a well-formulated book. I obviously do know a bit about Bayer now, and a bit about... And Bayer was a lawyer. So you think of this very definitely as a political... Thank you for watching. Hang loose guy is, you know, God, it makes my flesh scream, that kind of thing. You gave me some good words, because I knew the words, but I hadn't heard what you were saying. I like that, because people can say, when McLean counterattacked G. Gatlin, he had not yet reached the advantage. No, no, no, no, he had. Well, he did, but he was 90s. Besides this, any part of the public is going to be informed.

1:12:30 The impulse would be good to know something. This week's science and mathematical physics gives me reasons to add more emphasis on theory and physics. So if you look at cancers, anything from... You're not going to need to use an overhead projector or a laptop or anything tomorrow, are you? You'll just need to do that. I just told you, obviously, to make sure it's for the whiteboard. And also, John asked me to find out in him what the cost of all the speakers happening in this particular... I told you it was 99 cents, so you would just give a chalk and talk. You don't even need that. So they would have the right equipment. Mine's just a total. 20 past 10.

1:15:00 I'll come over at 10.30 tomorrow. Uh, okay. You might, I'm sorry to ask you, but I'd love to treat you that way. At the moment, I'm afraid my, I don't know how, this isn't going to take much more punishment. That's the way things are going at the moment. I don't want to tell you the problems that I've got, but at the moment I'm desperately trying to get some.

1:17:30 If I drop dead tomorrow, I mean, it would just be chucked in a tip, it would just basically be chucked into a skit, which would be what you'd do.

1:22:30 And is this a category fair? Is there a section that you're sharing? I might ask John or somebody to record that. I might even give you a recorder, but no, you'll be too busy organising. I won't put that on you, I won't lay that on you. Is there anybody else who's going to be there? Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your time. I'm actually going to see if I can't talk while I'm making the recording. Thank you for your attention.

1:25:00 Yeah, but you do get the rest of that in between. It's 50 days. No, I mean, it's good. And after that, I went to the Tacoma, Washington. The only guy, the only doctor who can treat my sleep apnea. So it's up there. Is that when you've got to have this scan? No, no, that's at home. I don't want to lie, obviously. This is something you have done every couple of years. You've no reason to want it, I think. Okay, I don't want to. You know, you know what I would say if I, you know, if I could find the word, I hope. Yeah. Thank you for your attention. I met for the first time at McLean because William Spiegel and his three daughters, Matthew and Gretchen, they considered themselves some kind of friends. Yes, they must have been. You see, I know that McLean, as we have had some astute observations about the whole thing before, and he actually wrote two or three books on the subject, in which he characterizes what's wrong with the American university system.

1:27:30 Do you know what I'm talking about? Yes, yes, I'm listening. Anyway, so... No, it's fine. ...the level of watering down is going to be... It's got to be... It's got to be between the scientific American and the little guy. You know that there's going to be a national development. It's hard to avoid taking this... Because, because it's in the same blogs that are published by the authors, then it is. The point about those is, in those respective rounds, is that they have both been published. I wouldn't sit in the lovely side of the American 30 years ago. On the highest, serious level. No, no, no, I think he's definitely got much, much work. Anyway, so in one hand, this is the kind of defense that I was going to accept.

1:30:00 Oh, I forgot to mention, I forgot to mention, what I thought you, what I thought you said in your actual answer, that you inspired me. Ah, and who was on that? Who was on this?

1:32:30 No, no, sorry, sorry.