Discussions, incl. FW Lawvere, C McLarty, L Corry, M Wright

0:00 But they clearly, they would have recognized them to be here, so yeah, so that's a strange reaction. I've got a really, really sorry that he didn't get here. Thank you very much. I can attest to that I made a heroic effort to predict this, so as a result I just didn't come around. But I think I've expanded on it slightly and it's going to be readable. So it was really a heroic effort to predict this. Well that might also provide a good show for setting it up. I just happen to have it. What a question. Well, I don't know what you thought of that, but I think it's a very wise English version of a lot of our hopes and do's, but I don't know. I appreciate the initiation of that, but I'm going to have to introduce it today.

2:30 Such projects are exactly what I would like to be doing in my next years too. Thank you for your attention. I hope you enjoyed this video. See you in the next one. If I have it, it will be helpful to me. I certainly have your feedback. But I have that in the original. Well, no proceedings so far. Oh, right. If I come back to the bill, I'm going to be meeting with probably my old co-student. Yeah, not one. Here, it's all explained in a row of hundred words. Oh, plus figures and cryptography. I think you're saying that that's not about what it is, it's not about the standards, it's not about the mechanics, it's not about the world of the mighty 19th century, it's not about the world of the great 19th century, it's about the world of the great 19th century, because...

5:00 Thank you for your attention. This is a historical survey as well. Imagine that. You don't know how to ask people to try and do that kind of thing. Now the reason they came to reject it was just that it was too... It would make the three of his brain hurt or whatever. It might actually make them want to go out and read more. I still don't understand how, in their minds, in the minds of people who manipulate the infotainment, what purpose they think is so. I suppose what they want to do is just raise the illusion of understanding. Thank you for your attention. I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but it could be very great.

7:30 The second paragraph of that sheet is incredible, with Brestin's position on the notion of mathematical possibilities, which obviously makes an arm of Regan's amount, and also, as you say, the... Thank you for watching. Just not least, we need to draw attention to the three aspects of the non-human category of the novel. And there's not anybody reading that who's going to want to hear my way into the study of the novel, especially about the distinctions between the different authors. So the naturality, I think, should come across in the first reading. And if you were presenting this in a studio, then this would probably be the place to bring in those illustrations. That's right. Thank you. Thank you for your attention. Yes, and again, obviously, a huge amount of philosophy concentrated in one paragraph about two groups of three orders, but also figures into the space of the integration. All the ascendants to the front, they all just kind of walked into a box, meaning they came later to one set, later to another, to try and ask for answers. Okay, do you want to do that Leo? Thank you for your attention.

10:00 They don't want to know about relativity, and the idea is dedicated to them. And it would have been nice to have had it made available to such an audience. Have you posted this on your website? No, not as far as you should. I thought that an elegic branch would have paid for it. Yes, but if you have a specific pedagogical section or link, that site would be suitable for you. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. At the end of these TGVs there's always an area, a washroom shaped area, where people sit down. So provided it's not... My tray is quite full. I'm just going to put it back. You need that back? Well, you need that back. Thank you for your attention.

12:30 Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. In the world of the unknown, but in the world of the unknown. Yeah, maybe we should take a taxi. Okay, we'll get a taxi. Okay, sorry to get you in the proper seat, but we have gone down. ...back yesterday, I'd like to sort of bring all those people here. There's a lot of historical stuff in this session, but on the side, certainly, it's very sad that you weren't there for the St. Paul's Car Game, but certainly on the side of detailed historical discussion of the whole development of our very country in the hands of Paul Garvey and then Grover Peake's school, and indeed, for those who left, Grover Peake's hands up. Since then, that has covered in the most of the discussions that have come up there, as you can imagine, also on the substantive level of the questions about what's the right way in terms of what to do, what to do with schemes, or that was fantastic.

15:00 But as you said, it's very important to me, and last night, I said, I really don't know what this is, but it's so important in a small gallery, which is in terms of, there's not any other way to explain it, it's an idea, but listening attentively and tumbling. Or even have a different experience as well, in the Congress and in the Senate. Thank you for your attention. He is able to draw deep connections between the kind of depth of mathematical conceptualization and the unity of vision. I think it is the most impressive thing that has probably been in mathematics in the last 40, 40 years. And it can't be better than yours. It can't be the same. That's precisely why I thought it was so important to have this video. And I'm very glad. Of course one would have liked further and more, but I think there's more to it. Not just because he is such a nice guy, but because he's got such a fantastic technical command, sees the conceptual issues also in a different way, not quite so deeply, because he doesn't have quite such a strong, uniform vision, on the other hand, as somebody who has the field for that, strategically needed for that. Unlike so many classical mathematicians, Lukács was a much broader vision.

17:30 Which is the thing that she is so often lacking, even in very complex. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know. I'm very pleased to have met you. And that's why... I think it's something I always am surprised at. Colleen is not. He shouldn't. Well, the reason is, I don't know, it's because the people in philosophy problems are scared shit. They can't appreciate it, or to the extent that they can appreciate it, you know, There's a lot in common with things that they don't know about. He scares them, so they have to scare them, and you know, they've got to change the sound director for the new people to go over, and they go in and go in, and that's part of it. Or it's the actual disease that we felt when the guy from Princeton found him on the station reading the model. If you know, if you can understand that, then what the hell are you going to do? But in my opinion, yes, I think all of it is the same. It's the right question for me. And because it's philosophy of mathematics that needs the transformation, we all see what has happened in our time with philosophy of physics and just how it has been transformed from a backward, there was no such subject for years, but in general there are very good things being done and there is now respect from the practitioners of the mother science and indeed a great deal of cross-verbalization in programs like quantum gravity. This is what I would, is certainly not the case of quantum mathematics. It is through the history that we are beginning to see that much greater depth of serious conceptual content and this is what I've been struggling for from my very position on the margins as just kind of trying to facilitate meetings between the right people which is for 15 years now. I think Angus was very interested in what I said. Oh, very interested in what I said. Very good. Will you have your own presenter? I could. I think I could.

20:00 And so on and so forth. And I hope the same thing will be said of the other two, because I think that might be the only thing that you can do in your life, is to talk about quantum mechanics and other things, and technically they are, and it's no doubt taught that a lot of people have read the newspapers, and when they come across them, it's the same thing, it's the first paragraph, and the shutters come down, they switch up, and they just don't read it. And when they come across them, it's the same thing, it's the same thing, it's the opposite. Again, if you want to be still with me, I can give you a talk about that soon. Now, if they haven't understood mathematical impurity, if they actually want to look at the math, they should learn it. Well, anyway, this is going to be taken seriously because this guy, this guy is all the guys, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, Thank you. All sorts of personal reasons. If you look at this record, it is from the 19th century to the late 19th century. And what is it about? It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It's a sign of this principle. It wasn't an author. And what is the list of the other two? At the time, he had other children. He was married to one of them. Did you ask him that?

22:30 Yes, I asked him that. Was it from the second one? No, it was two of our competitors. He was married. He did have another son. No, actually, not only my son. He retired with William Nevin. That was his son's guilt. He did have another son. He did have another son. I know all of his children. I know all of his children. I know all of his children very well. Thank you for your attention. I've been together ever since I was 13 years old, so yeah, so yeah, so yeah, I've been together ever since I was 13 years old, so yeah, so yeah, so yeah. Thank you for your attention. I don't know about the guy who wants to tell you his story, but you know it's his life story, you know, the first time you meet him, that's very scoff-retending, that's very scoff-retending, but even more than that, you know, they do tend to be a rather reticent fellow, a rather reticent fellow, he's one of the most private and emotional ones, and yeah, I mean, but in English, as a whole, you know, he starts well, and so, you know, he's a fascinating, he's actually fascinating, so, so, and I met him,

25:00 I met Lawrence in 2003 when he spoke at the previous meeting I organised with Bill, this mathematician, and I was hugely impressed there. And I hadn't actually spoken at the conference in 2003, I had also spent quite some time in Sicily in 1995 at this also menial meeting, when I first heard him lay out this account of what model theory is now, in the course of the coming, through the... The recognition of the centrality of ontological constructions and the connection, particularly, of rectometry and the way in which its connections with real living mathematical theories and different parts of mathematics become more and more of a guiding force of the subject, which is not to say that old school, you know, the old school Karski theory wasn't a... I wasn't a great accompanist at the time. From the mid-70s onwards, it's obviously been, as a subject, it's been moving further and further away from what Tarski's competition was, and it's been ceasing, ceasing more and more to be a large, large accompanist, and more and more a tool for him and everybody in mathematics, and this... I was explaining to the philosophers the stories of mathematics in this conference, and this is what it is. I've got a lot of opposition. Oh, really? Oh, yes. Don't. Oh, my gosh. He really became quite obnoxious. He knows a great deal about Freud. He knows some of the things and he's undoubtedly a very clever man, but he is very domineering and he got very angry because the whole idea that this, I hate putting labels on things, but sometimes they're necessarily evil because otherwise you just... You have to make so many, you have to sort of put everything together. But this whole, I can't draw this, but how the great structuralist conception of, sorry, of this whole.

27:30 This view of the, what I call the systemic, this is going to be easy in this picture, rather than the motion of the patient's picture. He is one to which Michael Montgomery is particularly fond, given the difference between the theory of meaning as the starting point of our philosophy, but he is particularly allergic to that. I mean, he was listening to Bill. Well, he's a smart man, I understand what you're saying. Bill was speaking to him. The representation theory is the second aspect of the theory itself, coming from his hands in Hollywood. And of course the reason for that is that he has this essentially very anti-naturalistic metaphysics and epistemology. Without language there is no world. I know, it's actually in my justification and deduction paper, you know, the British Academy justification and deduction paper. It's a rhetoric, and of course it's there in the practice as well, except that it doesn't make much of a part in philosophy of language and philosophy. Without language there is no world, it is only in a metaphorical sense that chance, or gods, is said to inhabit the world. Don't you think about that sense that a highly intelligent man wrote it. It is, it is. That's what the conviction that the theory of meaning underlies all other branches of philosophical inquiry. That's the absurdity. Of course I'm not judging right or wrong about that one remark, but I think that might be called semanticalism, that extreme semanticalism.

30:00 And of course, half of your idea of philosophy of mathematics is, of course, completely distorted and frames you. It has done much damage to philosophy and probably hasn't done much damage to mathematics. It has certainly made the emergence of a serious subject of philosophy of mathematics difficult. Anyway, I saw very clearly in the way that I went to Angus's... Thank you for your attention. It was organized from a vegetarian garden who is an Oxford, who was a Jean-Louis de Oliveira, I think. Ah, yes. He published his book on two things at the time. Yeah. Perhaps it comes from there. Yeah. What year was that? It was that. It was that. Ah, okay. It was. It was. Basically, that was the name of the conference. It was called that. Okay. Yeah, but in fact this place was a memory of his own. He's a nice guy. I mean, don't get me wrong, he's very apt, but I don't think he's a good leader. Sirius is a nice guy, but he's a nice guy. He's not a stupid, not an idiot. But he organized this meeting, and then just came. And, not to mean that I wasn't speaking, because it was all that they needed to be able to apply on the wall, but I don't think there was anybody else there who really had a clear significance of what I was trying to tell them. I enjoyed it because I never went to Sisley before and it was a very lovely little town and it's a sort of dorm town and it's a rather nice place to stay in the week and a couple of weeks in the year.

32:30 I think Andy was there as well, in fact he died shortly after. Ah, okay. The talks by Witten, I would have put a lot more out of it if I knew any sense of it. I would have thought they were absolutely basic. I certainly know nothing about the technical sector at all, but I realize it is a very subtle subject, extremely, extremely subtle and very, very sophisticated, which extremely small people can do. And, of course, if you take a general foundationalist view, there's probably a good explanation for that. The things which Bill was saying, these are these measurable particles, yesterday, which I have heard before, and I find those, I think those are amongst the deepest, most common ideas he has, and I'm not saying that they're particularly deep in terms of the consequences for them, in a sense, I don't think there's any way in a sense that he's taken this and used it, because it's actually a bit of a secret. You know, you're really doing it on subjects, your whole subject just rests on this one mistake about the act of the crate. That's the fact that you're, you know, you've chosen to work in a category that's... ...with that kind of domain. As soon as he sees the whole piano construction and the number, it's going to be a similar mistake. It's a misstake, isn't it, from a choice that privileges one determination concept in a way which ignores a lot of the history and a lot of the really deep concept connections to other parts of mathematics that might be developed in quite different ways with different tools.

35:00 But the thing is, in a sense, the message, I think, to the sector is that I wouldn't see it as a couple of courses, by all means, continuing to do what you do and what you're doing, but except that it's a corporate master and I can't pay as any of those courses, it's not actually going to provide the trial in the way that it goes, it's going to provide an insight into the truth about the The one true reality within which all mathematics and physics live, all into place. Of course, the sectarists themselves very rarely say, they constantly tell you these things. Oh, that's a fact, that's a fact, that's a fact. But now, I think we're just coming into the... Uh, in which case we might already be in, um, the next, no, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they don't, they Oh, sorry, my watch isn't two hours slow. So, yeah, we're just one hour from there. The rally's less than an hour from here, and it's only a half an hour. No, we're already on our way there. No, I think this is BK. No, no, it's a whole place that we can't stop. In fact, we may not stop at all. Yeah, some trains just go directly. Yes, you don't have to get it. It's a Friday. That's one reason why it's called Witten. It's a Friday afternoon. That's why it's always called Witten. It doesn't, this one doesn't have an actual proof set of the data.

37:30 What do you mean by that? Oh, the one with the fantastic mathematics is the Rue de Medici. Actually, it's Medici's Rue de Medici. And it is very easy to find because you just carry on walking down past the Place de la Sorbonne, where there is the Brown Hall, and past the P.U.S. store in the corner, and just keep going down past the Parthenon, and then... No, the street that leads up across the Rue de Parc, you turn right, you have the big roundabout, you have a street that leads down, if you were driving down the hill with the parking lot behind you, and you came to the, I think there's a fountain in the middle of the street, the roundabout, and you go... Ahead but slightly to the left, a parallel with the... So how do you say the railings? Parallel with the railings of the Luxembourg Arts. Okay. Parallel with the railings of the Luxembourg Arts. And on this street there are several box stores. There is a large general box store which has a lot of art books and things, usually out in here, play around with all of these things. And then about five maybe seven or eight doors further down, almost halfway along. So, is this shop which specializes in these just like Abbe, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's even better, but it's And we only have the most effective papers, including some newly published, some reprints, but it specializes purely in history of mathematics, nothing else. Quite a large shop, it goes quite a long way back. It's bigger actually than the Café shop. Well, I think the Café shop will probably have some more to stock because they have an upstairs now.

40:00 As in Gabay, the guy who is in there is very scholarly and knowledgeable, and you can talk to him, and you will know all about him. If you ask him about any book, read him, and I can read you through it. I have to say, I think Paris is the only city I know of in Europe. We certainly could no longer find any such shop anywhere in Britain, not even thirty-four years ago in Blackwells in Oxfordshire. And that would have been the nearest. Certainly there's nothing in the world that complements all this in terms of mathematics seriously. That area from the left bank is still an amazing place to be. Well, you know yourself. It's curious because these days they spend all their time concentrating on themselves. There's always telling me, oh Stan, Stan is a dreadful 10th rate by comparison with all the historians of mathematics and the way you speak and all the things you can read and all the things you can say. You've got to raise your game, which of course is good. There was a time maybe 30 years ago when there was a fair deal of talentism. I have to ask you one question. Have you ever, I won't say read, because I don't think it's possible to read it any more than it's possible to swim to the west now, but have you ever opened the pages of and tried to read the text of Stuart Shatow? Have you come across any of that? Well, it's dead, actually, about ten years ago. But he is this guy who wrote books about mathematics. He wrote a book about mathematics. Or at least it contains the truth about mathematics.

42:30 He wrote this extraordinary book, but I think it is just impossible to read. It's kind of a head of a box. Colin might be able to look at something. I've got a question. Yeah, fine. Thank you very much. What do you want to see going on in the future? 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. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, physics, and mathematics. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. There are also a number of other fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, mathematics, and mathematics. But, and yet... Well, no, this is reporting, I think, so I wouldn't, that's actually kind of the kind of defense of this, I wouldn't read it. The country said to me, I'm talking about the question of law. You know, I heard about the book, I read it, I liked it a lot. But honestly, the times I've gone and read it in front of the last person I've met, just somebody like this said they were good. I've given up the habit. I like this book a lot. Federico Fantas. I haven't read the book, but I went to a couple of seminars. In fact, I've actually come to the right book and read the book. It may just be, I'm not sure if it's Les Mathématiques Contemporaines, or L'Hospitalité Mathématique Contemporaine, anyways, Mathématiques Contemporaines, I'm sorry, and his name is P-A-T-R-I-N-G-A-T-R-I-N-G-A-T-R-I-N-G-A-T-R-I-N-G-A-T-R-I-N-G-A-T-R-I-N-G

45:00 Then you'll get this site, which is maintained by the Ecole de Mathématiques de Lille, where you can download, provided you have real class, which is pretty soft, I'm trying to put it in download, you fill in the class, division de savoir, it's a diffusion of savoir, division of savoir, and you fill in the class, provided you've got real class, and download, actually you can download video, you can download... Thank you for your attention. They don't record everything first, but they record Cartier and Longo's philosophy of mathematics, although in the last year they felt it was the one that they actually did, and the one that this guy Shashirian came at the end of the term, which put on duality principles, which were the two most interesting. But they're recorders. And Petras' seminar is over there. Oh yes, right, he gave a seminar on Kant. Thank you for your attention. And if you want, you can just listen to a couple of the students and I'll tell them what this music looks like, or if they'd read the book with us. I'm trying to find a way to leave. I don't know about two or three years ago. I've been thinking about your visible motivation, but if you say it, it won't work. The 17th century has been changing over the last year and a half. No, there aren't. What do you mean there aren't? Well, I... well... It's a story, it's a story, it's a story.

47:30 You know it. I mean, you... Topos theory was created... That's history. But then after 20 years comes someone who tells you... Hey, look, I saved this letter by November. That was completely wrong. So in that sense, it's very changing. I should say historiography. Oh, okay. No, no, of course. That's what I meant. But people usually translate the words and that should not be an issue. The view of history has changed very much. This is true of a lot of history, of the history of science. I think the history of mathematics may have changed. But I think that, for example, the 17th century has become a focus of a lot of innovation. Mainly because it was very easy to take the 17th century as a task. You know, here was darkness and then came light on that side. And things are very clear now. There are threads going back to the Middle Ages. And some of the things that were then projected were kept also far away into the 18th century. So, first of all, it was not a cut. The scientific revolution, I mean, the term is quite bad. Something happened very, very recently, not hours, but it was not a cut, by all means. And there are, it was not irrationality against rationalism. It was not theology against rationalism. You have all these things before and after. And historians have been addressing this very much. There are very many things. And one of the things that has been highly interesting is the presentation of the Catholic Church as a very non-mimicry, intellectual, and various parts of the Catholic Church, putting different stress on different... And the Jesuits are particularly...

50:00 I think the other thing that has to do with science is the way that we talk about them. Mathematics, in the sense that... The things that you said that what can be teached, what can be trained, for them it was a drug, a theological thing, you know, it's a way to know a drug or something. So, the Jesuits, I mean, 20 years ago there was nothing about Jesuit science, because it was always about the Jesuits. You know, you identify Jesuits, you have to say reactionaries living in the 33rd century. The Jesuits were also one of their main functions as library administrators in New Spain. Before they were expelled, they returned, but they were also transmitters of science, more than any other part of the world. Thank you for watching. There's a category of quantity in the 18th century, you know, the way that people like Gollum did, he was hypothesizing, you know, spinology, or anything interesting, it's all original to say, or are they just very mindful of that, you know, sort of, you know, well, I mean, they're not, there's not any big adventures in reconceiving Aristotle's categories, so Mr. Christian's been studying Aristotle's categories for a thousand years, and it doesn't turn out to be a big adventure. And so on and so on and so on and so on.

52:30 Since this guy, the main body of the Western science has gone on a completely different path than the one in the past. And Aristotle says when two people disagree, the best would be if we can find a common ground that they can agree on and sort out the disagreements. Failing that, the best thing to do is try to understand what part of the truth each of them has, since it's extremely unlikely that neither of them has any part. And of course, there's a kind of a creature reaction among other things, but in the long run, they were, okay, how do we understand this? I just wondered if there was a similar reaction to mathematical physics in the 19th century. Thank you very much for your attention and we hope to see you again soon.