Status Updates From Travels in Four Dimensions:...

Author introduces this type of probability as valid, I think it's false: pick out from 100 balls a ball numbered 63. If all the balls are 63, the probability for picking 63 is 1, while any other choice leaves you with a lesser probability. The author contends that it is most rational to assume that all the balls are 63. Even though probability is 1 in that case, the probability of that case being the case is not one.

Argument against infinitesimal numbers: A number is something 1x itself and divided by one of itself. This means that divided by itself, the infinitesimal number should produce a finite number, 1. But since the number is infinitesimal and only approaches finitude, it cannot ever become a finite entity one, because the enumeration of its components to produce the finite are infinite.

Interesting: if the world had no beginning in time, it could make sense that the world has been completed, but that the completion process did not begin in time, as in an infinite series of negative integers stopping at 0. So what we experience would be the end of the world. Certain affinity with Lurianic Kabbalah and tzimtzum here. Of course, the process can never have begun, but it can still have an end!

Argument against non-euclidean geometry: Non-euclidean denial of the parallel postulate works only with objects IN space, but not with lines that are not themselves parts of objects represented within some other space, whereas Euclid's postulate achieves a relationship between lines which do not constitute a bounded object within the frame. BUT the 4D stuff is proved the possibility of turning inside out

Argument against relational motion: If motion needs a definite benchmark, either stationary or of definite duration, then motion is inconceivable in absolute space, as they say. But to be able to relate the properties of one object to another, the other must have them already, but it can't have them since it must then be in absolute place / without any motion/space properties, so nothing can be related to it

Argument against relationism: if space is merely distance relations of one object to another, none of the objects can be anywhere without some other object being somewhere. But none of the other objects can be somewhere unless there was first simply one object in some place, enabling a distance relation to occur.

had to get away from Don Quixote