I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
Huang
you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
existence by means of physical experiment".
That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
based on this observation is that he exists.
I dont buy it.
One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence
based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do
not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded
as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type
of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is
certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence.
As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
Logic <=> Existence
So what do we mean by that. Well...we can devise many experiments
which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic.
For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe.
And if this universe were a perfectly logical machine, something like
a Newtonian clock, then we would reasonably expect that we have
demonstrated existence BECAUSE nature is imitating mathematics, and
math is based on existence.
Nonexistence on the other hand seems to exhibit a kind of "anti-
logic". So, until someone starts performing experiments that
explicitly demonstrate a physical manifestation of nonsense.....we can
safely assume that we all exist and the universe exists as well.
It seems to me that this approach is MUCH more valid than Descartes'
approach, and it really exhibits the usefulness of nonexistence and
nonsense.
There is much more to this story, because QM is inherently
probabilistic and so that needs to be explained. There is a perfectly
reasonable explanation of how that ties in, but I have no time at the
moment.
The important thing to READ in what I am saying is that Logic occurs
when you have mathematical existence, and Nonsense occurs when you
have nonexistence. If you can devise physical experiments which
exhibit logical processes in such a way that logic becomes
"observable" in some sense, then you have demonstrated existence.
This approach makes MUCH more sense than what Descartes said, basing
his silly conclusions about existence on his very weak observations of
his own thought processes which occur in his mind. That is practically
SILLY.
JUST TO RECAP :
Descartes makes an observation that "he thinks". From this he
concludes that he exists.
I dont see why that would neccesarily follow anyway - but thats what
he said.
It makes more sense to try to observe a "physical manifestation of
logical processes in nature" and marry that to an understanding of
math and then existence. I am completely stunned that he didnt take
that approach, but that is how things happened.
As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
Frederick Williams
> As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> Logic <=> Existence
>
> So what do we mean by that.
Your use of the word "we" is an attempt to implicate us all in your
silliness. Please don't do it.
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
Dirk Van de moortel
08066745-3ede-4da0...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
"Establishing existence by means of physical experiment" is not
what Descartes did.
"Inventing the one-liner" is what Descartes did.
>
> I dont buy it.
Congratulations!
Dirk Vdm
Tonico
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
>
> One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence
> based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do
> not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded
> as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type
> of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is
> certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence.
>
> As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> Logic <=> Existence
>
> So what do we mean by that. Well...we can devise many experiments
> which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic.
> For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
> notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
> example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
> very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe.
"We can show very easily that..."?? Who's "we" there, and how do you
intend to "show" whatever if not by THINKING?
Descartes was way more on the money than you, imo.
Tonio
pete
>
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am",
I had a dream about a guy who thought and said the same thing,
but when I woke up, it turned out that he was wrong.
--
pete
Huang
When I say "we" I am saying that you, or I, or anyone else would be
able to follow my general line of reason and it will work equally well
for "everyone". I am not saying that everyone will agree with me, nor
that they should. But merely that my line of reason does make sense to
me, and would make sense to "all people" WLOG if they were to keep an
open mind about it.
You could probably argue that in order to make an observation that it
is neccesary to "think" somehow, or to use one's mind to complete the
process of observing. Well then, I guess you can just go challenge all
of physics if you wish to be so contrary about it. But most people are
not so difficult minded when it comes to understanding observations of
physical phenomena.
There are things which count as observations which are not appreciated
as such. Some gedanken experiments regarding observability:
[a] There are 3 apples on the table. We place 6 more apples on the
table. There are now 9 apples on the table. THIS IS PHYSICS !!! You
just demonstrated that addition "works" in the physical universe.
If you had 3 and you added 6 to yield 54, then you would have
problems. But nobody ever "observed" that. Do you see why this process
of "observing addition" is so interesting ?
[b] Take a piece of paper and write th statement "This Statement Is
False". The mere fact that you can write such a statement on a piece
of paper constitutes a "physical experiment" and also a "physical
observation" of paradox. Most people do not regard these things as
physics experiments - and they are WRONG.
I see no reason to defend Descartes. "I think therefore I am" is no
better or worse than "Maybe I think so therefore maybe I am".
Descartes cannot PROVE that he thinks, and his claim is NOT
REPRODUCIBLE. I cannot use my brain to reproduce his thought process.
The fact that he relies on his thoughts as part of a physical
experiment means that his results will NEVER be reproducible by any
subsequent physicist - so why does'nt Feynman call "that" voodoo
physics ?????? Hmmmmmmmm ????????
Those who are brave enough to reply will be defeated.
The human brain makes for a very lousy piece of scientific equipment.
It cannot even be calibrated. What happens in one brain cannot be
reproduced by another with any kind of parameters on accuracy or
measurability. His claim that "he thinks" is meaningless.
However - if I take 2 shits on your pillow, and then I take another 3,
you will certainly have a total of 5. This is a physical process that
is[a] Observable [b] reproducible [c] falsifiable [d] qualitative [e]
quantitative - NEED I GO ON ???
HallsofIvy
He was, as you are, questioning what basis he had for believing ANYTHING to be true- he was looking for something it was [b]impossible[/b] to doubt.
And his conclusion was - if you doubt anything, there must be something doing the doubting. That would be better phrased "I doubt, therefore I am".
glird
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
> One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence
> based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do
> not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded
> as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type
> of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is
> certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence.
> As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> Logic <=> Existence
Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence.
"Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence".
glird
mpc755
I am therefore I think.
mpc755
Nature abhors reference frames.
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of
mathematics or something ?
Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that
there would be no such thing as logic ?
So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic,
because without life there can be no thought.
Frederick Williams
> Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence.
> "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence".
But logic _isn't_ thinking. It maybe that when people do logic they
need to think, but machines can "do" (at least some) logic also.
Tonico
Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that:
if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything,
and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey.
Tonio
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
So then, before there was no life on Earth, there was no logic. And
with no logic, why then would physics make any sense ? Why does the
universe continue if there is no logic ?
Are you saying that when all life has died, the we can have time
travel, FTL communications, cold fusion and antigravity motorcycles ?
If there were no life here to observe things....then 2 + 2 would equal
7 ???
Tonico
If there's no life at all then I claim 2 + 2 = 7 , FTL communications
will exist between lifeless planets and JHS will be considered the
greatest school janitor in mankind's history...you see? You can't
contradict me, so my claim is safe. **wink!**
Tonio
Huang
Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
us being here to appreciate it.
mpc755
Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
whether we mathematically define it or not.
Huang
> > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
Ridiculous. You cannot say whether mathematics was invented, or merely
uncovered. There is a difference between discovery and invention.
Nobody can say whether mathematics is one or the other.
But this debate has nothing to do with that.
This debate is whether Descartes was on the right track. He makes an
observation that he is thinking, and concludes that he exists. I think
that his argument is weak.
It makes more sense to say that logical events are observable in
nature, and therefore nature exhibits existence very much the same way
mathematics does. "We observe logical processes, therefore we exist".
Keep in mind that your comment on whether math is invention or
discovery does have a fundamental role for this last statement to make
any sense. Indeed, it must be equivalent (possibly indeterminate)
whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
BillyGates
logic comes before existance? What is logic? What is thinking? All your
definitions and understandings of such things are circular. Life is not
explainable by science except for what science can explain about it.
If life is more than what we can understand then we can never know about it
because we cannot understand things we cannot understand. Of course by
understand I mean we are incapable of ever understanding.
What if logic/life/etc is simply an illusion created by non-existance. You
say that it can't be because we exist in some form. It all makes sense
right?!?! But how do you know what non-existance is? What if what we call
life is merely the absence of "stuff". Imagine a
something(universe/life/place/time/etc) that is completely void. Maybe it is
so void that "life" springs up instantaneously but is really an illusion.
What Descartes probably really meant is that I believe that I exist because
it makes much more sense than believing that I do not exist. Not that "I
think I exist" therefor I must logically exist. It is impossible to prove
that because we cannot define such terms in any meaning metaphysical way.
Think of flatland. How can a 2D creature truely understand the 3rd
dimension? It can't. It is impossible. Can he "undersatnd it" in some way?
Maybe... but never like a true 3D creature. Similarly with 3D creatures and
the 4th dimension.
I guess the real point is that we should think about these things because we
don't know the limit of understanding. If we do not try to understand then
we won't find the boarder between what can be understood and what can't be.
As a practical matter we just all live in the big matrix anyways so it is
all pointless... I think I'm keanu reeves there for I am keanu reeves.
Androcles
"BillyGates" <Bill....@Microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:hnh2cb$fhs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Do you really believe you can logically explain existance?
Do you really believe you can spell "existence"? The real Bill Gates can,
he has a
spelling checker on his computer.
Huang
If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2
apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can
safely surmise that you do not exist.
If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise
that you do not exist.
If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise
that you do not exist.
But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate
existence as modelled by mathematics.
Whether mathematics and logic is an invention or a discovery, that is
a key question here. Because if logic is inherent to nature, then we
might DEDUCE that we exist from that fact and as stated earlier
logical processes are indeed observable.
I will give Descartes high marks for trying, but you cannot base your
scientific findings on observations of metaphysical entities such as
"thoughts" (whatever those are). Thoughts are not observable,
reproducible, quantitative, qualitative, falsifiable.
BillyGates
Your assuming mother nature exists! How do you expect to prove that once you
prove that we "exist" in mother nature?
BillyGates
I'm not Bill Gates!! I'm Billy Gates, Bill Gates' little retarded brother!
Edward Green
> > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Ridiculous. You cannot say whether mathematics was invented, or merely
> uncovered. There is a difference between discovery and invention.
Not really, if you think about it. Invention, or even the creation of
art, is simply the uncovering of some logically feasible arrangement
of matter, information, and so forth.
> Nobody can say whether mathematics is one or the other.
>
> But this debate has nothing to do with that.
>
> This debate is whether Descartes was on the right track. He makes an
> observation that he is thinking, and concludes that he exists. I think
> that his argument is weak.
I don't agree. I think his argument is very strong.
> It makes more sense to say that logical events are observable in
> nature, and therefore nature exhibits existence very much the same way
> mathematics does. "We observe logical processes, therefore we exist".
Solipsism remains an option, but even that is overcome by Descartes: I
think therefore at least I exist, if nothing else.
> Keep in mind that your comment on whether math is invention or
> discovery does have a fundamental role for this last statement to make
> any sense. Indeed, it must be equivalent (possibly indeterminate)
> whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
As I said, I think invention and discovery are equivalent. When you
invent or create something, you are uncovering a pattern which was
always possible in theory.
Huang
>
I am not sure that proof is possible in terms of physics. You might
get something like a mathematical proof somehow, but whather it
applies to the physical reality is dubious to me. In other words -
I dont know that you can actually prove that mother nature exists.
I believe that you can show 2 things :
[a] The universe is modellable using Mathematics
[b] The universe is modellable using a system of consistent
Conjectures
I believe that [a] and [b] are equivalent, because they would both
output the same numbers.
To prove that mother nature is strictly existent would be to
invalidate option [b] (which is based on existential indeterminacy),
and so I do not know if such a proof is really possible (in my
opinion).
My whole argument is that Descartes could have taken the view that "I
might think, therefore I might exist", and from that he could have
derived a system of reason equivalent to mathematics and nobody would
have ever known the difference.
Androcles
"BillyGates" <Bill....@Microsoft.com> wrote in message
Mr. Gates Senior and his wife must have been really retarded, calling
two of their sons "Billy". You need your medicine, Billy, nobody else
is quite that stupid.
mpc755
> > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Ridiculous. You cannot say whether mathematics was invented, or merely
> uncovered. There is a difference between discovery and invention.
> Nobody can say whether mathematics is one or the other.
>
> But this debate has nothing to do with that.
>
> This debate is whether Descartes was on the right track. He makes an
> observation that he is thinking, and concludes that he exists. I think
> that his argument is weak.
>
It doesn't matter if you prefer to describe math as invented or
'uncovered'. Math does not exist in and of itself in nature.
Mathematics is used to describe physical processes. The physical
processes which exist in nature exist in nature whether there is
mathematics or not.
> It makes more sense to say that logical events are observable in
> nature, and therefore nature exhibits existence very much the same way
> mathematics does. "We observe logical processes, therefore we exist".
>
> Keep in mind that your comment on whether math is invention or
> discovery does have a fundamental role for this last statement to make
> any sense. Indeed, it must be equivalent (possibly indeterminate)
> whether mathematics is invented or discovered.
It is more correct to say, "I am therefore I think".
mpc755
More correct:
"I think therefore I am" is equally correct as "I am therefore I
think".
Huang
> On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an
invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot.
The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be
fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a
component of nature. More fundamental even than space itself, that
things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to
acknowledge this as part of our natural world.
There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or
invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand.
mpc755
> On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > > > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an
> invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot.
>
It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not
fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of
itself.
> The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be
> fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a
> component of nature.
Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of
the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself.
> More fundamental even than space itself, that
> things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to
> acknowledge this as part of our natural world.
>
> There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or
> invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand.
Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to
discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics.
Mathematics does not exist without nature.
porky_...@my-deja.com
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
>
Never put Descartes before the horse.
BURT
> On Mar 13, 7:47 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would indeed
> > > > > > disappear without the process of observability, mathematics is not
> > > > > > science and I would argue that it might just as easily remain without
> > > > > > us being here to appreciate it.
>
> > > > > Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
> > > > > whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You have no proof either way. Nobody does. prove to me that it is an
> > invention and not a discovery, or vice versa. You cannot.
>
> It doesn't matter if it is an invention or a discovery. It is not
> fundamental in nature. Mathematics does not physically exist in and of
> itself.
>
There is one math that is physical. It is known as Gamma mathematics
and it is universal in physics.
Mitch Raemsch
> > The relationships which are modelled by mathematics may very well be
> > fundamentally inherent to the very fabric of the universe - a
> > component of nature.
>
> Correct. 'Modeled'. Mathematics is used to model the very fabric of
> the universe. Mathematics is not the very fabric in and of itself.
>
> > More fundamental even than space itself, that
> > things like logic are embedded in reality and we simply fail to
> > acknowledge this as part of our natural world.
>
> > There is a huge difference between the two views (discovery or
> > invention), and it is very important to the debate at hand.
>
> Discovery of nature is different than the use of mathematics to
> discover nature. Nature exists with or without mathematics.
> Mathematics does not exist without nature.
Zero.
Mitch Raemsch
BillyGates
> On Mar 13, 4:35 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Big wink back at ya - because while science and physics would
>>>> indeed disappear without the process of observability, mathematics
>>>> is not science and I would argue that it might just as easily
>>>> remain without us being here to appreciate it.
>>
>>> Mathematics is an invention. What occurs physically in nature occurs
>>> whether we mathematically define it or not.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Ridiculous. You cannot say whether mathematics was invented, or
>> merely uncovered. There is a difference between discovery and
>> invention.
>
> Not really, if you think about it. Invention, or even the creation of
> art, is simply the uncovering of some logically feasible arrangement
> of matter, information, and so forth.
>
to whom? To humans or to something external to humans? Do aliens find our
"art" logical? What about mother nature? Maybe we are just rearranging
randomness into another form of randomness?
Raymond Yohros
> Huang wrote:
> > scientific findings on observations of metaphysical entities such as
> > "thoughts" (whatever those are). Thoughts are not observable,
> > reproducible, quantitative, qualitative, falsifiable.
>
> Your assuming mother nature exists! How do you expect to prove that once you
>
that is what darwin did. he saw an explanation with
a pattern. a tree. a lifeform that is so ordinary in this
planet and jet so filled with inspirational content.
a pattern of life that flows from the most basic
forms to the most complex evolved creatures
that can go all the way to the point of questioning
their existance.
r.y
mpc755
Without nature there is no zero.
Huang
completely and totally unmeasureable !!! Descartes is NOT A
PHYSICIST !!!
I cannot take 50 cc of love and pour it into a flask. I CANNOT take 2
kilos of hate and put it into a beaker and leave it in the lab. You
cannot measure these things, and you cannot make valid physical
observations of them either !!!
For Descartes to say "I Think" this, and "I Think" that - is
meaningless to PHYSICS.
HOWEVER - you can indeed OBSERVE that 2 apples plus 3 apples is indeed
5 apples. This constitutes a VALID physical observation because it is
Reproducible, Quantitative, Qualitative, Falsifiable, and what you
have observed is a logical process in action .
I'll get to randomness, existential indeterminacy and Conjecture
later. The important thing to note is that Descartes is NO
PHYSICIST !!!
mpc755
If you do not have any apples then you can not observer 2 apples plus
3 apples is 5 apples. The apples must exist in nature in order for you
to be able to count them. Mathematics does not exist without nature.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Zero math is real in the Mind of God. The Mind of God does not need
the universe.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
I'm discussing the physical universe. Without a physical universe
there is no zero. My definition of physics is the 'physics of nature'.
I realize I'm not supposed to use 'physics' when defining 'physics'
but you get what I mean.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You said math is only abstract. So now zero math is more than a mind
construction? Please show how you can find zero in nature.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
You are the one who responded with 'Zero.' to my statement of
'Mathematics does not exist without nature.' It is up to you to
demonstrate how zero exists without nature.
Edward Green
Edward Green
You miss my point, really. The word "logical" perhaps could have been
just as easily been removed from the sentence. Does that make it
clearer? There is no arrangement of matter or information we can make
that was not a feasible arrangement of matter or information, just as
there is no (legal) game of chess that can be played which was not
inherent in the rules of chess, even if nobody has ever played that
game before.
Huang
> > "art" logical? What about mother nature? Maybe we are just rearranging
> > randomness into another form of randomness?
>
> You miss my point, really. The word "logical" perhaps could have been
> just as easily been removed from the sentence. Does that make it
> clearer? There is no arrangement of matter or information we can make
> that was not a feasible arrangement of matter or information, just as
> there is no (legal) game of chess that can be played which was not
> inherent in the rules of chess, even if nobody has ever played that
>
What Ed Green said is correct. And I will add that even if all of
these various configurations of matter, or chess games never actually
happened, they are all OBSERVABLE.
You cannot observe a chess game between 2 people where 3 people
actually win. That would be an unobservable chess game.
Descartes claims "I think....therefore a,b,c,d,e...". He might as well
have said "I love, therefore a,b,c,d...", "I hate, therefore
a,b,c,d...", "I have faith, therefore a,b,c,d...", "I fear, therefore
a,b,c,d...",
Thoughts are NOT observable.
Love is NOT observable to a physicist.
Hate is NOT observable to a physicist.
Fear is NOT observable to a physicist.
Want is NOT observable to a physicist.
Passion is NOT observable to a physicist.
Greed is NOT observable to a physicist.
Descartes based his conclusions about existence on something which is
completely non-observable. It makes much more sense to draw
conclusions based on things which ARE observable, and logical
processes are observable.
You can observe many logical things in action, they are very simple.
Put 2 bricks on the table, add 3 more bricks. The result of this
PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT is that you will now have 5 bricks, and you have
observed logic in action in our physical world.
If you ever take 2 bricks and add 3 more, if the result is something
other than precisely 5 then please call me immediately on my cell
phone because I will want to take a look at that !!
Ashton K
> Huang wrote:
>>
>> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am",
>
> but when I woke up, it turned out that he was wrong.
>
Well played.
Then there's the traditional Descartes joke:
Descartes walks into a bar, to have a drink. After a few,
the bartender asks
"Would you like to have another beer Mr. Descartes?"
To which he replies: "I think not."
*POOF*
Descartes disappeared.
--Ashton
Huang
"observed" in the same sense that we observe time and length.
Logic is not visible to our eyes, but can certainly be detected by
means of experiment. All you need to do is perform some simple
arithmetic experiments or demonstrations.
There may be some question as to whether logic itself is quantifiable,
but this may be possible due to some ideas such as entropy.
troll
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
>
One think that I noticed is that you did not post any links to any
other articles on the internet in some news magazine or even a
u-boob tube movie.
This tells me that you have not sold your soul to these other
authors and articles and that you have at least the illusion
of being able to think independently.
Most of it was something on the order of cattle waste, but for
the moment at least, you managed to avoid the 'Uncle Al'
bot who regularly comes in, posts 'snip c***', says 'you
are stupid' in some strange variant, and then wonders off
and does something else for a while.
This tells me that you might have for the moment passed
the touring test and at least appear to be sentient for the
time being, but maybe not.
Huang
One additional comment on what was written above regarding
quantification of logic.
Currently in math and science it would be widely regarded that logic
is an "all or nothing affair". You either have it or you do not, very
much like existence. The semblance is more than a mere coincidence.
But the important thing to note is that logic is already quantified
this way under the normal usage of standard mathematics. It may be
regarded as having a value of 1 or 0, %100 or $0.Something is either
logical or it is not, corresponding to a 1, or a 0.
If you are modelling with Conjectural Modelling, then you can have
partial logic because you have partial existence, the words to explain
this are very different than philosophical considerations used to
explain standard math, but again the two modelling methodologies (math
and conjecture) are ultimately equivalent. You still have equivalence,
and in my opinion partial logic would be consistent with the rest of
conjectural modelling.
If you have partial logic, again you have an ability to quantitfy
logic as it can take any value from 0 to 1 (noninclusive).
So, whether one is using mathematics, or conjecture, I believe that it
is indeed possible, reasonable, and completely sensible to quantify
logic.
Therefore, we should be able to use observations of logical processes
as artifacts of valid science. You can apply the scientific method
properly here, and you will have a valid observation which would
consitute valid physics.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> > Logic <=> Existence
>
> > So what do we mean by that.
>
> Your use of the word "we" is an attempt to implicate us all in your
> silliness.
>
Bo, he isn't. He is talking about himself. According to Mark Twain,
Huang has tapeworms.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
>
> based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do
> not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded
> as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type
> of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is
> certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence.
>
> As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> Logic <=> Existence
>
> which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic.
> For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
> notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
> example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
> very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe.
>
> And if this universe were a perfectly logical machine, something like
> a Newtonian clock, then we would reasonably expect that we have
> demonstrated existence BECAUSE nature is imitating mathematics, and
> math is based on existence.
>
> Nonexistence on the other hand seems to exhibit a kind of "anti-
> logic". So, until someone starts performing experiments that
> explicitly demonstrate a physical manifestation of nonsense.....we can
> safely assume that we all exist and the universe exists as well.
>
> It seems to me that this approach is MUCH more valid than Descartes'
> approach, and it really exhibits the usefulness of nonexistence and
> nonsense.
>
> There is much more to this story, because QM is inherently
> probabilistic and so that needs to be explained. There is a perfectly
> reasonable explanation of how that ties in, but I have no time at the
> moment.
>
> The important thing to READ in what I am saying is that Logic occurs
> when you have mathematical existence, and Nonsense occurs when you
> have nonexistence. If you can devise physical experiments which
> exhibit logical processes in such a way that logic becomes
> "observable" in some sense, then you have demonstrated existence.
>
> This approach makes MUCH more sense than what Descartes said, basing
> his silly conclusions about existence on his very weak observations of
> his own thought processes which occur in his mind. That is practically
> SILLY.
>
> JUST TO RECAP :
>
> Descartes makes an observation that "he thinks". From this he
> concludes that he exists.
>
> I dont see why that would neccesarily follow anyway - but thats what
> he said.
>
> It makes more sense to try to observe a "physical manifestation of
> logical processes in nature" and marry that to an understanding of
> math and then existence. I am completely stunned that he didnt take
> that approach, but that is how things happened.
>
> As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.
Huang
> > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
> Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
> sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
>
The reason it goes to sci.math is because Conjectural Modelling is
equivalent to Mathematics. Any mathematical problem should be
solveable using tools other than mathematics, and that is why it
should be interesting to the math community.
It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
scientific method.
My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
said, and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
understand it ?
More reasons why it goes to sci.math:
Conjectures (according to my usage) are based on existential
indeterminacy. They become mathematical statements under the
assumption of existence. Conjectural Modelling is "transformable" into
Mathematics. That is why this is of interest to mathematics.
Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential
indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. That is why
it is of interest to mathematics. This usage of conservation makes it
interesting to a physicist.
Huang
Adding to this, there are many applications of mathematics here which
are useful in justifying everything I have been saying. Any
mathematician is always looking for new applications of his tools, so
I'll give you one.
With respect to the particular argument at hand regarding Descartes,
we are saying that Descartes is flat wrong in his methodology and his
reasoning because he seems to try to apply the scientific method to
observe something which is unobserveable. He seems to try to observe a
thought, which is impossible.
Our claim is that arithmetic is observable in nature by means of
physical experimentation. Arithmetic logic is an observeable thing
which satisfies the scientific method. We can get rid of Descartes and
use this instead to establish physical existence - in fact succeeding
where he failed.
But there is an additional question which remains. If we do such an
experiment, for example "take 2 apples and add 3 more to yield 5
apples.", we still dont really know what an apple is. You can use
Fuzzy Mathematics to model this, and the definition of apple becomes a
matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling
for the reasons stated elsewhere.
But the point is that whether you have 5 apples you say that they are
all apples, or if you have 5 things which satisfy the fuzzy definition
of an apple, the fact remains that you can conduct such physical
experiments in arithmetic and draw conslusions based on the fact that
logicical relationships are easily observable in the physical world.
jbriggs444
> If you were to perform the following physical experiment : Take 2
> apples and add 5 more apples. If you obtain 11 apples, then you can
> safely surmise that you do not exist.
Nothing earth shattering to see here. You can safely ignore this
post. Press <next> now. It ain't Rocket Science.
It isn't even Peano arithmetic.
If I have a table and I keep adding apples on top of it, eventually
I'll have apples on the floor too.
If the pile gets high enough, I'll have apple sauce.
If the pile stays there long enough and isn't sterilized by the heat
of fermentation, I'll likely have apple trees.
If I wait still longer with fewer apples, I'll have apple dust, apple
stains and finally nothing at all.
Further, at least to the extent that time is continuous, there will be
times when the number of apples on the table is not well defined.
In Mathematics, we prefer models without such pesky limitatitions.
But yeah, within some fairly reasonable limitations, if you have two
non-overlapping groups of apples, A and B, the number of apples in A U
B is given by the number of apples in A plus the number of apples in
B.
I'm less sure that this counts as a fact of nature rather than an
artifact of what we consider to be reasonable limitations.
The principle of conservation of apples is not a universal law of
Nature. It is violated routinely.
> If you ever see a four sided triangle - then you can safely surmise
> that you do not exist.
Depends on your definitions, surely. And on how good your eyes are.
Sticks in nature are not always adequately modelled by line segments
in Mathematics.
Take triangle A B C
A
| \
| D
| \
B----C
Break stick AC at D. Is this now a triangle or a degenerate
quadrilateral? Neither? Both? Some of each?
Most of the triangle shaped toys I dealt with as a child had a top
side, a bottom side, an inside and an outside. That's a total of
seven. That's just the tip of that iceberg.
Also, realize that two Tinker Toy sticks two sizes down plus a spool
in the middle adds up to the length of a broken Tinker Toy stick after
you've run out of that size, thereby providing a reproducible physical
realization of a triangle with four sides.
> If you ever see a cube which is a sphere - then you can safely surmise
> that you do not exist.
A point satisfies the definition of both cube and sphere -- assuming
you use the right definitions.
Definitions
Sphere: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a
fixed center point using the standard metric:
m(a,b) = sqrt((a1-b1)^2+(a2-b2)^2+(a3-b3)^2)
Cube: The locus of all points in R^3 at a fixed distance from a fixed
center point using the metric
m(a,b) = max(abs(a1-b1),abs(a1-b2),abs(a3-b3))
or any rotation of such a cube.
> But we never see such things in nature. We see things which imitate
> existence as modelled by mathematics.
We see approximations. We recognize patterns. We invent categories
and taxonomies. Sometimes we notice invariants.
Sometimes we formulate mathematical models which idealize some facets
of what we think we have discovered in Nature.
Often we see what we expect to see and describe what we see according
to conventions we have learned.
I would suggest that the perceived fact that there are no four-sided
triangles is a result of the way our taxonomy of shapes works.
For planar shapes with identifiable straight edges we are taught to
count the sides and classify such figures based on the number of
sides. We do not intentionally blur the distinction between three and
four-sided figures even in cases where the distinction might not be
physically meaningful. (e.g. a plane figure in which two adjacent
sides may or may not be colinear).
For solid shapes we are taught to distinguish between cubes and
spheres. We do not intentionally blur the distinction between cubes
and spheres even in cases where the distinction might not be
physically meaningful. (e.g. a solid figure too small to have an
identifiable shape).
Someone sometime may have mentioned to you that theory is black and
white while the real world is shades of grey. It's true. That
principle applies to triangles and quadrilaterals and to cubes and
spheres too. [It even applies to 1's and 0's in physical digital
computers. Just not very often].
Huang
Thanks for that insightful and well written posting.
The question which remains is whether "physical manifestations of
arithmetic logic" can constitute a valid observation to a physicist.
My claim is that Descartes could not possibly produce a "thought"
which was reproducible, falsifiable, quantitative, qualitative, etc.
But, physical experimentation can show that basic logical processes
can be observed in action in the physical world, and I think these
observations would satisfy the prerequisites to be called "science".
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
It depends on your origin of math.
The Mind of God.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is more than Gamma math expressed in the universe. There are
spherical sin waves for matter and light nature.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Sizes of infinities of the infinitely small" are manifest in the
universe as space of finite length. There is a higher way to see
finites in nature.
Mitch Raemsch
Huang
> "Sizes of infinities of the infinitely small" are manifest in the
> universe as space of finite length. There is a higher way to see
> finites in nature.
>
>
It is encouraging, Mitch, to know that such incredible and beautiful
ideas would be completely and totally wasted on you.
Aatu Koskensilta
> It is encouraging, Mitch, to know that such incredible and beautiful
> ideas would be completely and totally wasted on you.
Why do you find this encouraging?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 15, 7:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> > > > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> > > > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> > > > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
> > > Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
> > > sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
> > > cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The reason it goes to sci.math is because Conjectural Modelling is
> > equivalent to Mathematics.
>
No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with
concrete and precisely defined objects. You posts are nothing but hot
air philosophical banalities thrown together.
>> Any mathematical problem should be
> > solveable using tools other than mathematics,
No. Many math problems require unique tools available only through
mathematics. Of course, you can dress these tools in different
disguises, but at the core they will remain the same.
>
> > and that is why it
> > should be interesting to the math community.
>
> > It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
> > an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
> > scientific method.
>
> > My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
> > said,
Well, I can't say that I devoted a long time to your post, but I did
understand some. For example when you wrote:
"For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. "
I understood that you are learning basic arithmetic and expressing the
same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age
of 4 or 5.
> > and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
I am not criticising it. I am just saying that this is clearly
philosophy, not math.
I recommend that you take your research even further. For example,
investigate what will happen if you take 3 apples and combine them
with 7 apples. How about if we replace apples with avocados?
> But there is an additional question which remains. If we do such an
> experiment, for example "take 2 apples and add 3 more to yield 5
> apples.", we still dont really know what an apple is. You can use
> Fuzzy Mathematics to model this...
Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult.
> ... and the definition of apple becomes a
> matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling
> for the reasons stated elsewhere.
This is very deep and brilliant from a philosophical point of view. I
can't wait for you to investigate the powerful probabilistic processes
in apples that determine whether 2+3=5 or not.
BTW, which apple variety do you plan to investigate first: Granny
Smith or Golden Delicious?
Aatu Koskensilta
> No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with
> concrete and precisely defined objects.
How is, say, the first extendible cardinal or a non-measurable set of
reals "concrete"?
> Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult.
Fuzzy mathematics is perfectly fine, ordinary mathematics. Some people
do associate the mathematical models, results, techniques, with dubious
and bizarre philosophizing, but that's another matter[1].
Footnotes:
[1] Bart Kosko's _Fuzzy Thinking_ is a wonderful read if one enjoys
paranoid rants and fifth-rate philosophy. There's also a bit about
fuzzy logic in the book. Alas, most texts on these topics are boring,
entirely lacking the chutzpah and inanity of Kosko's more exciting
fuzzy thinking.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
Huang
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:53 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:09 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> > > > > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> > > > > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> > > > > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
> > > > Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
> > > > sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
> > > > cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > The reason it goes to sci.math is because Conjectural Modelling is
> > > equivalent to Mathematics.
>
> No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with
> concrete and precisely defined objects. You posts are nothing but hot
> air philosophical banalities thrown together.
As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of
"conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is
not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I
have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this
cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are
indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense.
These are not philosophical banalities.
Your insistence that "things either exist or they do not" is much more
of a philosophical "opinion" than mine. I am saying that these two
methodologies produce the same numbers, and so therefore they are
equivalent. The only difference is a distinction between working with
"what is" and working with "what might be". The existent versus the
existentially indeterminate.
> >> Any mathematical problem should be
> > > solveable using tools other than mathematics,
>
> No. Many math problems require unique tools available only through
> mathematics. Of course, you can dress these tools in different
> disguises, but at the core they will remain the same.
You will have to address my central thesis in order to effectively
attack what I have been saying. All you have succeeded in thus far is
demonstrating that you have not even understood my position.
> > > and that is why it
> > > should be interesting to the math community.
>
> > > It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
> > > an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
> > > scientific method.
>
> > > My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
> > > said,
>
> Well, I can't say that I devoted a long time to your post, but I did
> understand some. For example when you wrote:
>
> "For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
> notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
> example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
> very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. "
>
> I understood that you are learning basic arithmetic and expressing the
> same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age
> of 4 or 5.
And what I understand is that you are a troll. Put that statement back
into it's original context and address what I said about Descartes
asshole.
> > > and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
>
> > ... and the definition of apple becomes a
> > matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling
> > for the reasons stated elsewhere.
>
> This is very deep and brilliant from a philosophical point of view. I
> can't wait for you to investigate the powerful probabilistic processes
> in apples that determine whether 2+3=5 or not.
>
> BTW, which apple variety do you plan to investigate first: Granny
> Smith or Golden Delicious?- Hide quoted text -
Dont reply unless you can address the big picture. Your rebuttal would
be infantile if indeed you were an educated person, I certainly hope
that's not the case.
Huang
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > No, it isn't. At least not your version. Mathematics deals with
> > concrete and precisely defined objects.
>
> How is, say, the first extendible cardinal or a non-measurable set of
> reals "concrete"?
>
> > Fuzzy Mathematics is not mathematics. It's a cult.
>
> Fuzzy mathematics is perfectly fine, ordinary mathematics. Some people
> do associate the mathematical models, results, techniques, with dubious
> and bizarre philosophizing, but that's another matter[1].
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] Bart Kosko's _Fuzzy Thinking_ is a wonderful read if one enjoys
> paranoid rants and fifth-rate philosophy. There's also a bit about
> fuzzy logic in the book. Alas, most texts on these topics are boring,
> entirely lacking the chutzpah and inanity of Kosko's more exciting
> fuzzy thinking.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Fuzzy mathematics is universally accepted throught the math community.
One of the things it says that real world "objects" are difficult to
define, so you give them fuzzy definitions and then whether something
is or is not an apple becomes a question of probability.
Let me restate that for Mr SBM Ostap Bender Jr :
"Whether Something Is Or Is Not An Apple Becomes A Question Of
Probability"
Now - Bender wanter me to give a probabilistic treatment of simple
arithmetic such as 2 + 3 = 5. Mr Bender - this is childs play for a
mathematician. This is not a challenge at all. If you have 2 apples
and you add 3 apples, abd the definition of apple is fuzzy, then by
definition you are doing probability theory disguised as arithmetic.
Sorry I dont mean to sound hostile toward you Mr. Bender, but I must
insist that my primary assertion remains unchallenged - and at this
point it is appropriate to mention - that
"Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms
Of Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential
Potential."
Fuzzy math included !! :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle, wirf sie nicht vor die Saue."
Aatu Koskensilta
> As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of
> "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is
> not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I
> have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this
> cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are
> indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense.
>
> These are not philosophical banalities.
Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical
interest or relevance.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
Marshall
> On Mar 15, 6:39 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age
> > of 4 or 5.
>
> And what I understand is that you are a troll. Put that statement back
> into it's original context and address what I said about Descartes
> asshole.
I don't see how he could reasonably be expected to accomplish
this given how very little in the way of surviving primary-source
information about Descartes asshole.
Marshall
Huang
> Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of
> > "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is
> > not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I
> > have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this
> > cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are
> > indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense.
>
> > These are not philosophical banalities.
>
> Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical
> interest or relevance.
>
> --
>
> "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Inane or not, I see no proof that modelling based on "that which
exists" is any better or worse than modelling based on "that which
might exist".
Inane or not, it is consistent. I'd like to see where that consistency
fails to hold. Then I will believe that I have wasted someone's time.
Huang
Stop.
Scientific experiments are "reproducible" regardless of when they were
performed. If I do an experiment today, it shoul dbe reproducible
tomorrow, or 400 years later.
Desartes' "thoughts" are not reproducible by ANYONE - please stay on
topic.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Where did I say that?
> I am saying that these two
> methodologies produce the same numbers, and so therefore they are
> equivalent. The only difference is a distinction between working with
> "what is" and working with "what might be". The existent versus the
> existentially indeterminate.
And why is this thought of any use?
> > >> Any mathematical problem should be
> > > > solveable using tools other than mathematics,
>
> > No. Many math problems require unique tools available only through
> > mathematics. Of course, you can dress these tools in different
> > disguises, but at the core they will remain the same.
>
> You will have to address my central thesis in order to effectively
> attack what I have been saying.
So, what IS your "central thesis" and why is it unique? Keep in mind
that I have taught math to a lot of children, so I have heard a lot of
philosophical theories from them in my time. How is yours unique?
> All you have succeeded in thus far is
> demonstrating that you have not even understood my position.
Do you understand MY position?
>
> > > > and that is why it
> > > > should be interesting to the math community.
>
> > > > It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
> > > > an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
> > > > scientific method.
>
> > > > My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
> > > > said,
>
> > Well, I can't say that I devoted a long time to your post, but I did
> > understand some. For example when you wrote:
>
> > "For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
> > notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
> > example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
> > very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. "
>
> > I understood that you are learning basic arithmetic and expressing the
> > same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age
> > of 4 or 5.
>
> And what I understand is that you are a troll. Put that statement back
> into it's original context and address what I said about Descartes
> asshole.
>
But, Huang, you have to keep in mind that I am not only an asshole
but I am infinitely less intelligent than you are.
> Let me restate that for Mr SBM Ostap Bender Jr :
> "Whether Something Is Or Is Not An Apple Becomes A Question Of
> Probability"
>
> Now - Bender wanter me to give a probabilistic treatment of simple
> arithmetic such as 2 + 3 = 5. Mr Bender - this is childs play for a
> mathematician. This is not a challenge at all. If you have 2 apples
> and you add 3 apples, abd the definition of apple is fuzzy, then by
> definition you are doing probability theory disguised as arithmetic.
See? When I think of 2 + 3 = 5, I never consider the underlying
probability that an apple is an apple and not a centrifuge or a
motorcycle. I suppose it is possible to confuse an apple with a
motorcycle, although the probability of that is somewhat low.
That's why I am not a philosopher. If i were to investigate
probability that an apple is an apple, I would talk to an agronomist
not a mathematician.
> But there is an additional question which remains. If we do such an
> experiment, for example "take 2 apples and add 3 more to yield 5
> apples.", we still dont really know what an apple is.
I suspect that agronomists and geneticists know more about apples than
you think.
> But the point is that whether you have 5 apples you say that they are
> all apples, or if you have 5 things which satisfy the fuzzy definition
> of an apple, the fact remains that you can conduct such physical
> experiments in arithmetic and draw conslusions based on the fact that
> logicical relationships are easily observable in the physical world.
Can you extend your philosophy from apples to something I like better:
bosc pears?
> > > > and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
>
> > > ... and the definition of apple becomes a
> > > matter of probability. This again is amenable to Conjetural Modelling
> > > for the reasons stated elsewhere.
>
> > This is very deep and brilliant from a philosophical point of view. I
> > can't wait for you to investigate the powerful probabilistic processes
> > in apples that determine whether 2+3=5 or not.
>
> > BTW, which apple variety do you plan to investigate first: Granny
> > Smith or Golden Delicious?
>
> Dont reply unless you can address the big picture. Your rebuttal would
> be infantile if indeed you were an educated person, I certainly hope
> that's not the case.
What is your "big picture"?
I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you
so far is trivial, very typical of any little child.
Aatu Koskensilta
> I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you
> so far is trivial, very typical of any little child.
I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that
Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything
trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion"
"Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms Of
Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential Potential."
nor do I think it typical of little children's musings, who, in my
experience, rarely maunder erratically about "existential
indeterminacy", fuzzy logic etc. Huang's babbling and his "primary
assertion" appear to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and
abstruse philosophical doctrine.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you
> > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child.
>
> I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that
> Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything
> trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion"
>
> "Every Probabilistic Problem In Mathematics Can Be Restated In Terms Of
> Existential Indeterminacy And Conservation Of Existential Potential."
>
What is "Existential Potential" and where exactly did Huang use this
term?
Look, Descarte's saying "A think therefore I am" is a somewhat cute
one-liner. Not among my favourite 100000 one-liners, but cute. But a
post devoted to seriously discussing the "profundity" of this cute
saying, belongs in sci.philosophy not sci.math.
> nor do I think it typical of little children's musings, who, in my
> experience, rarely maunder erratically about "existential
> indeterminacy", fuzzy logic etc.
Sure they do. I told my son about Zade's fuzzy logic, and so he uses
this term left and right to make himself look "profound". Similarly,
if you teach the term "existential indeterminacy" to a child (or to a
parrot for that matter), (s)he will put this term into a lot of
sentences.
> Huang's babbling and his "primary
> assertion" appear to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and
> abstruse philosophical doctrine.
And that's what I wrote to him in my initial post:
" Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air?"
In any case, I would like you to interpret for me the profundity of
Huang's observations like this:
> Now - Bender wanter me to give a probabilistic treatment of simple
> arithmetic such as 2 + 3 = 5. If you have 2 apples
> and you add 3 apples, abd the definition of apple is fuzzy, then by
> definition you are doing probability theory disguised as arithmetic.
Is "2+3=5" really "probability theory"?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Mar 15, 8:44 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > As stated elsewhere, Conjectural Modelling is a system of
> > > "conjectures" which are consistent with respect to each other. It is
> > > not mathematics and never will be, it is not supposed to be. But if I
> > > have a cube or a sphere and I say there is a 50:50 potential that this
> > > cube exists, then you cane safely say that %50 of the time you are
> > > indeed doing mathematics and %50 of the time you are doing nonsense.
>
> > > These are not philosophical banalities.
>
> > Indeed not. They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical
> > interest or relevance.
>
> > --
> > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)
>
> > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
>
> Inane or not, I see no proof that modelling based on "that which
> exists" is any better or worse than modelling based on "that which
> might exist".
That's true. In fact, almost all of mathematics deals with ""that
which might exist" and not with "that which exists". Every scientist
knows that. So, what's new in your repeating this obvious fact?
> Inane or not, it is consistent. I'd like to see where that consistency
> fails to hold. Then I will believe that I have wasted someone's time.
Not everything that's consistent is of use. A lot of trivial
statements are consistent but bring nothing new to the table.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Why?
In fact, if you look outside today, you will see rain. If you look
outside today, you will see sun.
Aren't you the one to claim that all knowledge is probabilistic in
nature?
> Desartes' "thoughts" are not reproducible by ANYONE - please stay on
> topic.
You were the one to bring up both "Descartes" and "Descartes'
thoughts".
Marshall
WOOSH!
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you
> > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child.
>
> I'm a bit perplexed by this remark, as well as your earlier claim, that
> Huang's assertions are philosophical banalities. I don't see anything
> trivial, trite or commonplace to e.g. his "primary assertion"
>
> They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical
> interest or relevance.
Why wouldn't "inanities of no apparent mathematical interest or
relevance" qualify as "trivialities" in common speech? You seem to be
making a rather subtle philosophical distinction between the two.
> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear
> to be, rather, an expression of some impenetrable and
> abstruse philosophical doctrine.
Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent
mathematical interest or relevance"? You are way too philosophical for
me. To me, your expressed views seem rather inconsistent.
Aatu Koskensilta
> Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an
>> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine.
>
> Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent
> mathematical interest or relevance"?
Yes.
> You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem
> rather inconsistent.
I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That
aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an
> >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine.
>
> > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent
> > mathematical interest or relevance"?
>
> Yes.
>
> > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem
> > rather inconsistent.
>
> I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That
> aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views?
>
To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to
being synonyms.
What major difference do you ascribe to them?
Huang
>
> > >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an
> > >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine.
>
> > > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent
> > > mathematical interest or relevance"?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem
> > > rather inconsistent.
>
> > I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That
> > aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views?
>
> To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to
> being synonyms.
>
Your rebuttals have been reviewed and although I simply dont have time
to reply to each and every comment, I would thank you for the time
that you have taken to write these things. I would however comment
that I find them highly unsatisfactory, I suppose I would probably
give you guys a C or maybe a C- . A little wit would be a nice touch,
but I'm a huge fan of the sarcasm.
So, to be completely truthful about it I could give you both an A+ for
effort, because I know that you have no valid argument against any of
the things I have said. This is because none exists. It is wrong of me
to send you looking for something which is not there, so I will give
you the solution to this riddle --> Im right and there is no way to
destroy my argument. I should apologize for sending you on a wild-
goose chase.
I remain open to any technical rebuttals, the name calling is always
welcome as well but it does distract from the ultimate objective,
which is of course advancing man's ability to model things using tools
other than mathematics which are equally consistent and accurate as
math itself. That is my stated objective, and I am winning this
debate.
Huang
> To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to
> being synonyms.
>
> What major difference do you ascribe to them?
Definition, definition, definitions.
From
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trivial.html
"Related to or being the mathematically most simple case. More
generally, the word "trivial" is used to describe any result which
requires little or no effort to derive or prove. The word originates
from the Latin trivium, which was the lower division of the seven
liberal arts in medieval universities (cf. quadrivium). "
From
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inane
inane
adj. in·an·er, in·an·est
One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments;
angry with my inane roommate.
from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/inane
1 inane (adjective)
2 inane (noun)
1 : empty, insubstantial
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments>
synonyms : see insipid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing these definitions, I dont really see the connection between
the trivial and the inane. I disagree that they are nearly synonymous.
And I dont really see the connection between all of this and
Descartes.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:20 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 9:11 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 6:33 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 15, 6:39 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr."
>
> > > > > I understood that you are learning basic arithmetic and expressing the
> > > > > same admiration for arithmetic logic that all children do at the age
> > > > > of 4 or 5.
>
> > > > And what I understand is that you are a troll. Put that statement back
> > > > into it's original context and address what I said about Descartes
> > > > asshole.
>
> > > I don't see how he could reasonably be expected to accomplish
> > > this given how very little in the way of surviving primary-source
> > > information about Descartes asshole.
>
> > > Marshall
>
> > Stop.
>
> > Scientific experiments are "reproducible" regardless of when they were
> > performed. If I do an experiment today, it shoul dbe reproducible
> > tomorrow, or 400 years later.
>
> Why?
>
> In fact, if you look outside today, you will see rain. If you look
> outside today, you will see sun.
I meant to say: In fact, if you look outside today, you will see rain.
If you look outside tomorrow, you will see sun.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to
> > being synonyms.
>
> > What major difference do you ascribe to them?
>
> Definition, definition, definitions.
>
>
> "Related to or being the mathematically most simple case. More
> generally, the word "trivial" is used to describe any result which
> requires little or no effort to derive or prove. The word originates
> from the Latin trivium, which was the lower division of the seven
> liberal arts in medieval universities (cf. quadrivium). "
>
>
> inane
> adj. in·an·er, in·an·est
> One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments;
> angry with my inane roommate.
>
>
> 1 inane (adjective)
> 2 inane (noun)
>
> 1 : empty, insubstantial
> 2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments>
>
> synonyms : see insipid
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reviewing these definitions, I dont really see the connection between
> the trivial and the inane. I disagree that they are nearly synonymous.
> And I dont really see the connection between all of this and
> Descartes.
>
OK Let's assume that you are right: "trivial" and inane" are totally
different. Then please adjudicate between Aatu Koskensilta and myself.
Who is right? Aaatu, who calls your posts "philosophical inanities, of
no apparent mathematical interest or relevance"? Or I, who thinks that
your posts are "trivial" and "infantile"?
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't mean to be disrespectful but everything I have seen from you
> > so far is trivial, very typical of any little child.
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
> They're philosophical inanities, of no apparent mathematical
> interest or relevance.
Please decide which of us is more correct.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > > >> Huang's babbling and his "primary assertion" appear to be, rather, an
> > > >> expression of some impenetrable and abstruse philosophical doctrine.
>
> > > > Which also happen to be "philosophical inanities of no apparent
> > > > mathematical interest or relevance"?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > You are way too philosophical for me. To me, your expressed views seem
> > > > rather inconsistent.
>
> > > I haven't expressed any philosophical view in this discussion. That
> > > aside, what inconsistency do you find in my expressed views?
>
> > To me, "trivial" and "inane, of no apparent interest " are close to
> > being synonyms.
>
> > What major difference do you ascribe to them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Your rebuttals have been reviewed and although I simply dont have time
> to reply to each and every comment, I would thank you for the time
> that you have taken to write these things. I would however comment
> that I find them highly unsatisfactory, I suppose I would probably
> give you guys a C or maybe a C- . A little wit would be a nice touch,
> but I'm a huge fan of the sarcasm.
>
> So, to be completely truthful about it I could give you both an A+ for
> effort,
You know, these are the rare moments I live for: getting approval and
high grades for my efforts from sublime geniuses like yourself, Huang.
> because I know that you have no valid argument against any of
> the things I have said. This is because none exists. It is wrong of me
> to send you looking for something which is not there, so I will give
> you the solution to this riddle --> Im right and there is no way to
> destroy my argument. I should apologize for sending you on a wild-
> goose chase.
>
> I remain open to any technical rebuttals, the name calling is always
> welcome as well but it does distract from the ultimate objective,
> which is of course advancing man's ability to model things using tools
> other than mathematics which are equally consistent and accurate as
> math itself. That is my stated objective, and I am winning this
> debate.
You are a great winner through and through, Huang. From your very
first post in which you established your intellectual superiority over
Rene Descartes and, by transitivity, over most other immortal
mathematicians.
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the kudos & accolades, I can provide a po box where you
may send my many medals.
To address each in turn,
First, Aaatu, calls my posts "philosophical inanities, of no apparent
mathematical interest or relevance"?
I disagree that it is inane, because I provide a tool for solving
problems and modelling which does the same thing mathematics does, but
it is not mathematics. If what I say is inane then so is mathematics
and I dont really think that is the case. Is it philosophy ? Well,
what is mathematics ? Is philosophy a crime ? The fundamentals of
mathematics include something called the law of the excluded middle.
There is no reason why this would be a "law", other than the
philophical views of those who agree that it must be a law. There is
no proof of this law - fundamentally mathematics itself IS philosophy.
So what.
Secondly, Bender thinks that my posts are "trivial" and "infantile"?
Infantile ? - only when I think that it would add some character to
the debate. So, yes Im infantile, but you are gay. Trivial ? Of course
I love all things trivial. But being trivial is not a crime either.
Zero is trivial, and so are a million other things, without triviality
you would have some huge problems. The issue here is triviality is not
appreciated.
One aspect of what I have been trying to communicate is that the
distinction between determinacy and indeterminacy is itself trivial. I
truly believe that to be trivial, and I think it can be shown as such.
There are MANY applications of this view - here are some examples.
So,
[1] Whether a cointoss is random or not cannot be known. You can treat
it as if it were random, and you can model it as if it were not, and
both models will produce the same exact results.
[2] Whether the whole universe is deterministic or not cannot be
known, it may be regarded as being deterministic or non-deterministic.
These are equivalent.
[3] Whether to model things with mathematics based on "knowns" &
"givens", or whether to model things based on "what might
exist" , .....these two approaches are equivalent. They produce the
same numbers.
Just to expand a bit on [3] : Math is a system of modelling where you
start with knowns, and you end with knowns. If you have a function,
you can pump it full of "things which are said to exist" and it will
spit out a bunch of different "things which are said to exist" .
Basically, "existent things in, existent things out". Knowns go in,
and other knowns come back out.
Conjecture is different. Nothing is taken to be a known, everything is
taken to be an expected value. Nothing is known, everything is
expected. Expected values in, expected values out. Expected geometry,
expected values, expected everything.
So the two approaches are very different, but I think that they are
equivalent. I do not think that it is possible to prove this
equivalence using mathematics, you can come close but you will always
have a paradox to deal with.
So thats my view.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
I'll email them to you.
>
> To address each in turn,
> First, Aaatu, calls my posts "philosophical inanities, of no apparent
> mathematical interest or relevance"?
>
> I disagree that it is inane, because I provide a tool for solving
> problems and modelling which does the same thing mathematics does, but
> it is not mathematics. If what I say is inane then so is mathematics
> and I dont really think that is the case. Is it philosophy ? Well,
> what is mathematics ? Is philosophy a crime ? The fundamentals of
> mathematics include something called the law of the excluded middle.
> There is no reason why this would be a "law", other than the
> philophical views of those who agree that it must be a law. There is
> no proof of this law - fundamentally mathematics itself IS philosophy.
> So what.
>
> Secondly, Bender thinks that my posts are "trivial" and "infantile"?
> Infantile ? - only when I think that it would add some character to
> the debate. So, yes Im infantile, but you are gay. Trivial ? Of course
> I love all things trivial. But being trivial is not a crime either.
> Zero is trivial, and so are a million other things, without triviality
> you would have some huge problems. The issue here is triviality is not
> appreciated.
>
Yes, I now realise that you have been a champion of triviality at
sci.math and that I even commented on these posts a while back.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/11755065522d4473
Subject: What makes a trivial operator trivial ?
Look, every person tackles problems that fit their brain power. Some
people tackle complex issues, others - trivialities. To each his own.
You and I agree that your thoughts are trivial.. We also agree that
you have a full right to think trivial thoughts about trivialities and
to post them to Usenet.
But we also disagree. Here is where:
1. I don't think that useless ponderings about trivialities belong to
sci.math. They belong to sci.philosophy, because much of modern
philosophy is dedicated to hot air.
2. You say:
> I provide a tool for solving
> problems and modelling which does the same thing mathematics does, but
> it is not mathematics. If what I say is inane then so is mathematics
> and I dont really think that is the case.
I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in
mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but
unlikely. Serious problems? No way.
Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open
problems in math? I don't think so.
> If what I say is inane then so is mathematics
But this implication would be true only if all of mathematics belonged
to your domain of expertise: triviality.
However, 99.99% is non-trivial. Can your approach be useful in doing
non-trivial math? Can you show how your "method" (whatever it is) can
contribute an alternative approach to such classic subjects as, say,
Galois Theory or Ito Calculus.
Good for you. You are exercising your brain.
But how does this help mathematicians? How can we use your results to
solve non-trivial math problems?
Huang
> I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in
> mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but
> unlikely. Serious problems? No way.
>
> Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open
> problems in math? I don't think so.
Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking
aside - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to
it.
There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid
alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief. And some of
these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood
in new ways, such as conservation.
I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of
conservation than the average physicist, including Noether. I may or
may not be right, but I have seen things from a completely different
angle. And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right
or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then
so be it.
But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly
intriguing.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > I don't think you do provide any useful tool for "solving problems" in
> > mathematics. Trivial problems for 5 year old children? Maybe, but
> > unlikely. Serious problems? No way.
>
> > Have you used your methodology of triviliasation to solve any open
> > problems in math? I don't think so.
>
> Nice reply and very witty, gave me some good laughs. But all joking
> aside
I wasn't joking. If somebody's thoughts are useless, why should I read
them?
> - there is a usefullness to all of this. There is a point to
> it.
Really? Give me an example of how your thoughts on triviality
contribute to math research.
> There are ways of modelling things which are perfectly valid
> alternatives to what is customary. That is my belief.
Yes. There are infinitely many different ways to see things. But most
of them are useless.
> And some of
> these approaches shed light on thigns in ways which can be understood
> in new ways, such as conservation.
Some - do. Your posts - haven't so far. At least not to math.
> I do believe that I have approached a deeper understanding of
> conservation than the average physicist, including Noether.
If you want to talk to physicists - why do you post to sci.math? What
use do your posts give to mathematicians?
> I may or
> may not be right,
I am sure you are right: everything you say are trite banalities that
every adult knows by heart.
> but I have seen things from a completely different
> angle.
They may seem to be "from a completely different angle" to you. But to
adults, they are inane, trite and obvious.
> And I'll be honest with you, I dont care at all if I am right
> or not. I just like to spar, and dig around, and if Im an idiot then
> so be it.
You ar enot an idiot. But when you grow up, you will see that your
thoughts are obvious.
> But my understanding of conservation - my vision of it - seems fairly
> intriguing.
"Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about
Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am".
Raymond Yohros
> "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...@Microsoft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hnh6pt$hl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> Androcles wrote:
> >> "BillyGates" <Bill.Ga...@Microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hnh2cb$fhs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> Do you really believe you can logically explain existance?
>
> >> Do you really believe you can spell "existence"? The real Bill Gates
> >> can, he has a
> >> spelling checker on his computer.
>
> > I'm not Bill Gates!! I'm Billy Gates, Bill Gates' little retarded brother!
>
> Why are you using your brother's email address?
> Mr. Gates Senior and his wife must have been really retarded, calling
> two of their sons "Billy". You need your medicine, Billy, nobody else
> is quite that stupid.
>
youre vission of EM is whats really stupid.
Huang
Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea
that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I
have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about
existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them. I
have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there
regarding existence.
So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus. But when you really
think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore
I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he
exists".
Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of
amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the
fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them"
know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever
will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries".
> I
> have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there
> regarding existence.
You are a very sane man, Huang.
However, previously you told us that your specialisation is
triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is
floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every
banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality,
right?
> So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus.
Don't worry: he doesn't care.
> But when you really
> think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore
> I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he
> exists".
Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks
or his religious views, but for his mathematics.
> Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of
> amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO.
Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to
mathematics not philosophy.
That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality
about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or
sci.physics.
Huang
> > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about
> > > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am".
>
> > Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea
> > that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I
> > have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about
> > existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them.
>
> But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the
> fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them"
> know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever
> will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries".
So, if someone says "I have faith in God, therefore I exist"....a
person such as yourself would accept this as valid science and just go
on your merry way. Is that about right ?
Because that's exactly what Descartes did - he said "I think therefore
bla bla bla", and clearly the process of thinking proves precisely
nothing. Your inability to recognize this is even more humorous to me
than your snide remarks, really.
There is no way to prove whether Descartes even had a thought at all -
as he claims - nor can we even be sure that he even existed himself.
How do we know that he's not just a cartoon that someone invented.
Maybe we could go dig up his grave and do a DNA test, but you will
never be able to prove that his skull once housed even a single
thought - as his may have been very much like yours.
> > I
> > have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there
> > regarding existence.
>
> You are a very sane man, Huang.
>
> However, previously you told us that your specialisation is
> triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is
> floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every
> banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality,
> right?
Trivialist and trifler are two different things. Guess which one you
are.
> > So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus.
>
> Don't worry: he doesn't care.
>
> > But when you really
> > think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore
> > I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he
> > exists".
>
> Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks
> or his religious views, but for his mathematics.
>
> > Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of
> > amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO.
>
> Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to
> mathematics not philosophy.
But he did contribute to both, and he was a very wise man. Apparently
he did place some value on philosophy in order to spend any time on
it. So, I guess that he would probably disagree with your views that
all philosophy is simply "inane". It's too bad he's not here to tell
you that in person.
> That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality
> about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or
> sci.physics.- Hide quoted text -
If you can think of a rebuttal that actually has some meat on it -
that would be helpful. Otherwise may I suggest sci.whining, or
sci.crybabies
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > > > "Conservation" of what? I thought your posts here were about
> > > > Descarte's one-liner "I think therefore I am".
>
> > > Well, because my approach involves "indeterminate existence", the idea
> > > that there is a state in between existence and nonexistentce.......I
> > > have to be able to answer everyone who ever said anything about
> > > existence. Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them.
>
> > But don't feel any pressure on yourself though. Take solace in the
> > fact that "Descarts, Ayn Rand, Heidegger, the Greeks, all of them"
> > know answers to philosophical questions 10000000 better than you ever
> > will. So, they are not waiting for your "discoveries".
>
> So, if someone says "I have faith in God, therefore I exist"....a
> person such as yourself would accept this as valid science and just go
> on your merry way. Is that about right ?
>
No. Most likely, I would do something: I would yawn and tell him that
his rhetoric is inane.
What else do you expect me to do? Kill him? Ask the police to arrest
him?
> Because that's exactly what Descartes did - he said "I think therefore
> bla bla bla", and clearly the process of thinking proves precisely
> nothing. Your inability to recognize this is even more humorous to me
> than your snide remarks, really.
Well, if Descartes said all this, maybe you should either beat him up
or sue him in court.
> There is no way to prove whether Descartes even had a thought at all -
> as he claims - nor can we even be sure that he even existed himself.
I can see how this tragedy can give you ulcers.
> How do we know that he's not just a cartoon that someone invented.
Maybe all historical figures are cartoons. Maybe you yourself are both
a cartoon and a bot.
So what? What's important about Descartes is not his existence/non-
existence, but the foundations of calculus and analytic geometry that
we all use today.
> Maybe we could go dig up his grave and do a DNA test,
Sure. You can do that if you want. Yawn.
> but you will
> never be able to prove that his skull once housed even a single
> thought - as his may have been very much like yours.
Why should I care?
> > > I
> > > have to be able to answer every view that is floating around out there
> > > regarding existence.
>
> > You are a very sane man, Huang.
>
> > However, previously you told us that your specialisation is
> > triviality. So, your plan is not "to answer every view that is
> > floating around out there regarding existence" but to answer every
> > banal view that is floating around out there regarding triviality,
> > right?
>
> Trivialist and trifler are two different things. Guess which one you
> are.
I am a loser, who wastes his time arguing with inane idiots like
yourself.
>
> > > So - that's why I threw Descartes under the bus.
>
> > Don't worry: he doesn't care.
>
> > > But when you really
> > > think about it - Descartes is no empiricist. Saying "I think therefore
> > > I am" is no different than saying "I have faith in God therefore he
> > > exists".
>
> > Maybe. Who cares. To, Descartes is useful not for his one-line remarks
> > or his religious views, but for his mathematics.
>
> > > Bertrand Russell is another one to look at here - he did alot of
> > > amazing things but his work on existence was incomplete IMO.
>
> > Same with Bertrand Russell. I value him for his contribution to
> > mathematics not philosophy.
>
> But he did contribute to both, and he was a very wise man. Apparently
> he did place some value on philosophy in order to spend any time on
> it. So, I guess that he would probably disagree with your views that
> all philosophy is simply "inane". It's too bad he's not here to tell
> you that in person.
Are you convinced that Bertrand Russell existed? Maybe you should rob
his grave too?
> > That's what I said from the beginning: your inane and trite banality
> > about triviality belongs to sci.philosophy, not to sci.math or
> > sci.physics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> If you can think of a rebuttal that actually has some meat on it -
> that would be helpful. Otherwise may I suggest sci.whining, or
> sci.crybabies
Thank you for your advice.