Discussions, incl. FW Lawvere / C McLarty / A Peruzzi (contd.)

0:00 But actually, I think the whole point about this distinction is that, in fact, it's completely false in the historical development. Because we might actually look at the human was fairly very strong in the considerations of mathematics. He clearly did have a melange of... I mean, Witten seems to be one of those people who, in a sense, was, perhaps, in the kind of Arabian model... I think they're very much coming together. They're closely conceptualised by package, which is probably not the main thing. Oh yes, there are plenty of examples of theories which were developed. Oh yes, sure, there are plenty of examples of theories which I think were dominant in mathematics as a whole in the last hundred million years. Of theories which were developed, of course. I mean, they've taken other examples in any category, both in any paper.

2:30 So there's an extreme example of an expo, but that whole division that seems to be the recreational one is very much exposed, very exposed, and more and more exposes given that there's a lot of monstrosities. Anybody who takes this seriously, first of all, no mathematicians, hardly mathematicians. On the other hand, there are some mathematicians who have touched on this. I think it's bemoaning the fact that modern mathematics has lost its grounding in the application of mathematics. And also lost the truth, which was the nature of first field, which obviously is not the notion of the facts of modern mathematics. That's a, you know, bemoaning the fact that mathematics... I think that's a somewhat misconceived complaint. Yes, I think so. But still, it's perfectly accurate. No, but nobody's going to take it. The nature of the world is a matter of unity, and it's clearly at work, and for instance, very much so. And its motives for doing that might be rather aristocratic, in a way that most people would have seen as very, very common, very much of a new emotion, which allows for a kind of reintegration of mathematics as a whole. I think that's what's behind it.

5:00 Which would rehabilitate this notion both of like variation and quantity and actually infinite, because it's actually directed at precisely at this idea of an ontological primary substance. But that's there you've got, although very much implicit in the fact that mathematics is a product of disorder, but no mathematicians. You must do mathematics this way. These are the problems you should work in because this is what will lend itself to an overall dissemination of mathematics, which fits well with the central geography of the competition, just not to get any better than that. Oh, there were too many. Okay. Well, what's enough? I've probably got a can of beans. This would be fine, I think. Okay, that's extremely kind of you. Thank you very much. I'm going to have you, my friend. No, yes. I don't know why I'm a Star Wars fan of mathematics. This seems to me to be actually quite... I think there is, there is still a problem about regular classes, but then when you're trying to produce a course of mathematics which starts off from an absolute... I think in effect it's totally unlike the other ballgames, or the only ballgames of the time. It's worse than that, I'd say. I think there really is a lack of a way of thinking about it as a domain of variation and composition, which, when you first hear the abstractions, is of a very old fashion.

7:30 I had a lot of sympathy for what he was saying until he said that it's a binary. Here, I think, this is hopelessly extravagant. Stay with Aristotle. Don't try and get quite on it. And then, you know, anything else goes. No, no, no. In fact, you can't say it. Because just say it. No, but it is just as good as saying it. I don't really want to tell them I'm a musician. Because he knows perfectly well what he's listening to. Yeah, I can't listen to him. We had some full-spaced before and after. There's a story we're quite familiar with. To give the 1950s my gave, there was a seminar on logic and physics. Did you like it? I don't know if I like it. I don't understand it.

10:00 Quine came in the 1950s. He actually counted the number of years. Otherwise, that's the answer. I think there might be a couple of the other things that we'll talk about, possibly. I don't know. I can't get it. But he was, you know, he was given a terribly hard lecture. I don't remember that in the... No, there's a passage in the... There's a very short one. ...dormant one. ...was of his terrible, his even terrible self. Is that... And is that a part of... I'm sorry, in the trade. Which? The whatever... I don't know. I don't think so. So, at the same time that he was in Oxford, I think, I can't, I mean, at this point I can't look at it, but he didn't give a lot, but, what year was Klein in Oxford, first? It must have been sometime in the mid-1950s, I don't know, but he was going to give a lot, but he didn't give a few, I think, he didn't.

12:30 Well, anyway, he was in Paris at the same time. He was a caster. Right. He probably was the same. Sorry, sorry. I'm so sorry. It was a bad move. Very bad. You're in Perth. Do you know Ray Brubblehoose? Do I know him? Ray Brubblehoose. He's in the Masterclass. So far, I haven't met him. He's the... Well, I was involved in a kind of foundations physics group in the UK, which was where I made the first draft of my thesis, and after that I made the first draft of my thesis. We've actually called it Theoretical Physics CERN, which is the same as the Foundation, but that's a completely different term. There's a lot of very good people in that, and some of them are very interesting. I have to say from a very different point of view. Yes, yes, yes, you know, recognizably are they at the screen of the NBD. Why is the lecture, you know, something like that? I don't know.

15:00 I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just trying to find out what's going on. Well, it's an awful lot going on, but it does have an office on the 7th floor, and it just has a car door. I'm sure you'd be delighted if you could pop in and get in touch with me. I think he's in room 705. Oh, right. Well, I'll find him. He's up there in the little room on the corner. He's always very accessible to people about anything. Can you tell us something about how he moved there? One thing I missed a bit about how he moved there was the fact that he was relatively complex. Well, this is one reason why I mentioned it. Yes, yes. And, Paris, you were very interested in it. Partly it's because we thought it was really a little bit away from the mainstream. And it's like buildings that are in our own little world. Physically, yes. That they rarely get into the mainstream. One of the nice things about the old Paris street group, the Elders, was that, of course, it was, as far as we're concerned, interdisciplinary across the organization. Of course, it's interdisciplinary. History of mathematics, what he was working on, his early ideas about physics, his early works, but he was also working from then, in the early, mid-60s, and he had a deep knowledge of mathematics, and he could base the whole thing on that, the complex.

17:30 But when you think about the role of quantum mechanics, they had a completely different approach. They had a completely different approach. So I'm much more of a master of mathematical mathematics than I am of quantum mechanics. And not relying on the complex. And there's a jolly good point. It may sound like a specialist complex, but it is rather biased in regard to quantum mechanics. Contrastingly, you know, they're really sort of approaching it in a different way. I don't know if I'm saying this or not, but when Roger went off, he went off in a really technical, very good direction, but the roads not paved were quite interesting. Even now I think it's like someone on a lost cycle that caused that dialogue that went on in Berkeley. But it was an amazing place to live. Well, yes, but it was full of very, very good people, especially the mathematicians. Thank you for your attention.

20:00 Thank you for your attention. And then, you know, they've got this card that says, no, not enough mums in seats, we can't begin with this, we can't begin with this, we can't begin with this, we can't begin with this, we can't begin with this, we can't begin with this, It's amazing to hear that. It's a private thing.

22:30 This is a huge picture of the world of the second half of the 73rd, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century, of the 19th century. And then we have a family of characters that I cannot do. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. It took about 12 months to produce the transcripts, and then another half a decade to get them to the exact same level we've got here. Can I do two interesting things? Yes, I will. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your time.

25:00 I made an excuse to blent, so I'm afraid it's true, I'm breaking the rules, because collectively... Somebody on the news... Speakers include mathematics, geometry, algebra, analysis, quantum mechanics, algebra, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, algebra theory, You know, there's overall, there's overarching views that are actually specifically working on some of what is going on in your field. Oh yes, very clearly. I've had some very interesting conversations about this area and I think it's very important to talk about it. Right. And there are lots of very tough ideas that are constantly operating. Still, as the main point, it's a very old fact.

27:30 I think that's the second part of the presentation. It was very interesting to see the modernization of the recreational mathematics as applied or something like that. Yeah, vocational, recreational mathematics. I think that, well, first of all, I mean, even to reconstruct, remathematical mathematics is better. The first principles of the mathematics and the physics do come as an intertwined meshed package of reasons for what they do. There's a bit of a capital thing in Aristotle, and there's still an awful lot of issues in Aristotle that include the power of physics, the modern, usual, the post-cantorian, because it really can't be an absolute thing. We have the post-cantorian. This is going to give us a completely different view of the part of yourself which is just a hammer and a hammer. It's not just a hammer and a hammer. From anything that interests us, we think it's going to be fun. I think it's very interesting.

30:00 David Davidov, I'm very interested in. I'm going to be Marvin. I had an interesting conversation last night when I was in the pub around Wynmark, and there was an art of being a Dutch guy in a very good museum, and a leader had turned up, about the influence of late medieval philosophy on life, it's like a wrestling with infinity in one of God's... It was something very strange which happened, nobody had thought of it as something that could be positive. I've been around around that time. They came up with all these things, and I couldn't actually positively count them, but they clearly had quite an influence, I guess, if you're also positive. Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, I can get them to come back. They may come to see you later, if you don't want them. Right, yeah, yeah, yeah. Hi, sorry, I didn't mean to... Hi, I'm sorry, I've been waiting. Do you want to talk about the project, about the funding and trying to get the project going?

32:30 Did you do that this evening? Yeah. Okay. Right. Let's do that. Because, yeah, I've got to rush off and do a few bits of shopping. Right. Okay. Yeah, there's only about an hour, isn't there? So, yeah. But, yeah, we'll talk about it. Yeah. Keep time to do it. In other words, you don't have to rush off straight away. You're not going back to Bristol tonight. Oh, no, no, no. Oh, no. Okay. That's nice. Thank you. What does it have to do with such a... A sort of quiniantly ontological way of reading the indispensability. Thank you very much for your attention.

35:00 Yes, so new control over the computer? Yes. I should have made that, fortunately the audience wasn't misled, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I hope you can read well. I think actually your writing choice is less devotable than mine, but I'll do my best. That is a B, by the way, not a C. Speakers sometimes misread it. And I'll do that like we can't have any others. MPPW 1879, I'm sure you recognise that. Yeah, you do. Because I had to put in four figures because there was already MPPW, so I chose the date for publication. Which is also Einstein's birthday, which is useful. Yeah, you're right on that. In three months' time I hope we shall have a rather elaborate new website on which we shall have a catalogue and a list of 400 or so.

37:30 Thank you very much.