I would love to explain mathematics to Roger – it would annoy the daylights out of him – because his platonism would be eradicated forever.
( insert nonsense response from moron here)
Roger is a mathematical platonist. Most mathematical platonists – including Roger – lack the vocabulary to evolve to join the computational (operational) revolution of ‘sciencing’ mathematics. Leaving behind set (ideal and verbal) foundations and converting to operational (real) foundations. Roger’s strength is that despite being a mathematical platonist, he creates mental models, instead of treating mathematical symbolism as a language (sophistry). Pure mathematics (measurement and deduction) and Mathematical physics (description of constant religions ) differ in their tolerance. The reason Roger is successful despite his mathematical platonism is his mental models: realism. If you were anywhere near as informed on the subject of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics you would at least have a vague understanding that this was a primary research problem in the past and that the operationlists succeeded in some disciplines (physics) but failed in others (mathematics) and that at least at present, the operationalists (computationalist) are winning that battle for rather obvious reasons: the field of computable descriptions is greater than the field of calculable descriptions because in the end, mathematics breaks down at the extremes because it is all fundamentally statistical not causal at extremes. (which might take a bit of work to understand). As such Economics and Fundamental Physics break down. As for my content, the fact that science explains ‘conservatism’ and ‘progressivism’ as eugenic and dysgenic is not novel. What’s novel is the completeness of the model from first causes, creating a continuous coherent paradigm through physical, biology, cognition, language, and behavior and consequences. As Popper suggested, there are sources of ignorance. Sources of ignorance prevent knowledge and understanding. Those sources of ignorance tend to provide an incentive to deny or evade the formal, physical, cooperative, and evolutionary laws of the universe. The self-test is rather simple: Does your preference, belief or argument seek to circumvent formal, physical, natural, or evolutionary laws? If so then it’s a natural cognitive (social) bias. And it’s false. Cheers.