Michael Wright / Basil J Hiley conversation 2008
← All recordings

Recorded at conversation (2008), featuring Michael Wright, Basil J Hiley. From the Michael Wright Collection, held by the Archive Trust for Research in Mathematical Sciences & Philosophy.

Identifier
mw0000346-cc-b_p
Format
Audio recording
Collection
Michael Wright Collection
Repository
Archive Trust for Research in Mathematical Sciences & Philosophy
Rights
Made available for personal scholarly use. Rights in recordings are generally held by the speakers or their estates. If you believe this recording infringes your rights, please contact [email protected].
Transcript
Read the automatically generated transcript

This transcript was generated by speech-recognition software from an archival recording and has not been hand-corrected. It will contain recognition errors — particularly for proper names and technical terminology — so please verify against the audio before quoting. Timestamps play the recording from that moment.

2:30 The reason why I went back to the E01, but E is galvanized and therefore it doesn't matter, the eye doesn't matter about whether it's linear or semi-linear if you're getting all the ideas out of it. There is a series of one-to-one correspondence between the numbers, take the wave function, take the direct wave function, the wave function, and therefore eight parameters, eight real parameters. Take the minimum ideal and there's an ultramorphism, it's a transform, that ideal into the wave function. You can define a domain. So you've got a bone momentum and a bone energy everywhere.

5:00 And it's a bottom linear invariant. Now what Heston calls an observable, but I would rather call it a vehicle. But the sum of they are the same thing. Yeah, and he then uses the weight, the components of the weight factor, all the components of his left ideal, then... The question is, one way I thought of doing it, when I sell them, I go with the super-human type.

7:30 He knew, he knew. Can you remind me again of the circle? The ordinary Hamiltonian discovered. If you do the ordnance, the normal Hamiltonian theory can write down a covariance and that's what he's done, he's made a fake wheel of law and the super Hamiltonian that I'm using, that becomes an energy system. If I run, this is very, very big stuff. It's essential energy. I don't detune that. I mean, it's just definitely.

12:30 People like Bill come out with this way of talking about represent dynamics, but you can represent the theme there, whatever it's good. Yeah, yeah, well not only you, but I think all the greatest minds in, you know, European thought, you know, float there. Which doesn't mean it's not worth restating the problem. This is my phone, it can't be there to see how it rains. I'm not doing that because I don't even want to look at any way of approaching it. I won't go down that road. No, no, well at least, well, you know... Time is the most real. Time is the most. It's almost not enough to say we experience it. It's the absolute precondition of our kind of awareness.

15:00 All of your ideas from David and you about the holidays. What we've been advancing since David even earlier in life. And actually, well, actually what the whole question is.

17:30 Well, no, no, no, no, he doesn't want to play with them. I think you bring in the rest of the story, and I know it. No, you do, you do, you do, but the point is that everything at the beginning modulates and I, although, you know, some very fascinating ideas there, if I agree, if you agree, I'm aware of it, I'm aware of it, I've seen my sort of, yeah, the being is derivative, the being is derivative of the time.

22:30 The point of the bone interpretation of the time is that so much time is split, you know, that only comes about because... I haven't seen a great big one, so I may look at it later. Well, I haven't either. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it.

25:00 I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. I've never read it. This is why it's so important. I think it is, I think it is. One thing about Haydn was that it's about the absolute, whereas it's not, whereas it's not that everything would be the same. That everything could be written by some kind of substantial material, but it was really coming from geometry, because it's highly, you know, well, exactly. The mind or matter, in another way of pronouncing it, I don't know.

27:30 This thing called the EIDOC, well, well, it's a couple of things, well, I have to, well, I'm going to put it in Greek for you. It depends on how you pronounce ancient Greek. Some people pronounce it Uri and some people pronounce it Orioli. And some people pronounce it highly, but that's definitely a mispronunciation. But this is exactly what the image I had in mind. The thing called the eye dot. Well, this is the first one. Probably. The idea that Aristotle was all just about, you know, form and substance is a parody of the answer.

30:00 Because each generation has a slightly different... Of course, and indeed, Aristotle only makes sense in connection with... If you took Aristotle any more than what Newton said...

32:30 I can send you... send it to me when you get home. It's called something like quantum information. And you just warned me of doing it too mathematically. Well, I hope that wasn't the thing that he wanted, because, of course, Bob or I haven't. I think that we can understand the thing which the thought of physics is. It's a very nice little phrase, Mr. Bishop, but it's nothing to do with physics. It's the point about the duality. Strong growth in physics. I am much more comfortable...

35:00 Well, I think because we... Well, I certainly know... We can learn the plot. We learn the plot. It's absolutely important in order to... That's the main thing. It's important in order to get... They have, you have to struggle and wrestle to put them into a kind of linear, logistic, because the notion of concrete evolved from mathematics, well of course, I mean, I've been done both with concrete now, and started with it, and what is it, but is it, is it something that could be used for talking, oh yes, I know, I know, I know, but he spoke at Cambridge about it in 19...

37:30 He's unfortunately completely left. I've stayed in touch with him for a long time actually. He's a very, very nice guy. I actually had him come to stay with me.

40:00 I was going to say. Plus or minus. Yeah, I was going to say. He's probably already in the basement. I've copied it. Yeah? Yeah. Yeah, I seem to recall seeing it, but I don't think I have a copy of it. It's very, very nice of you. You know, right over here. Yeah. Yeah. No, look how I've put it behind you. Can I see what's in it? No, I haven't seen it. No, I don't think I have anything. He was trying to do, he was trying to construct a verb, but it didn't work, but what he was doing was he was trying to use the cathartic hook. People don't think they've got a clear notion of what they're doing. Either there's something that we can construct, or how we understand realistic violence. It's interesting that there's such a format going on now, like I have to say.

42:30 Yeah, it's not going to be as far as it goes, but it's not going to be as good. It's not, to be honest with you, it's not really going to be good.

45:00 The topic deals with notions like relations, that you're given this one single classifying ring, that you could do everything you'd like to do in all of these, and you just get logics.

47:30 That's just coming out of a fragment.

52:30 No, no, no, no, we wouldn't. Not, I have to say, because we think that Comrade Leonard is probably right. But the essential idea was of course that there long, long, long before... But they were quite smart. They were given the... No, don't forget it. They wanted to get away from the idealism. Yes, exactly. ...modern material. Neurology. Modern material. Modern science. Modern mainstream science. A lot of people... What they're doing is really out of their minds. Yes, exactly. All of that is fine as long as you remain... You've told me what matter is, but I might tell you whether or not I'm in the period, otherwise. It's something I've said. It just invades me. But there's another way of thinking about it. That's one of the most interesting things.

55:00 They haven't even begun to. They haven't even begun to even look at it. In other words, they're thinking, you're going to form it.

57:30 Yeah, right. Anyway, we don't know. Why did you ask me? Oh, I don't know. We don't have to sit like that because, you know, we're both such old partners. We are partners. We are. So, er... Part, um... Spend some time. Spend some time. Drawing a distinction. Drawing a distinction. So that you've got a notion of... And the last time I was with you was from the school of Schroeder.

1:00:00 Oh, thank you.

1:10:00 And the whole point of this... It's very rational.

1:17:30 It's just the way it is. It's talking... It's very nice. I know it's nice, but I mean...

1:20:00 I know it's nice, but I mean... No, I think that was probably all. You know, he is a very famous.

1:22:30 I don't know. I don't know either. I think it was more than that. It was more than that. I don't know because I...