Most radical and stupid thing I ever said. Also the most correct.
Huang
Let a exist. Let b be nonexistent.
And let a be an integer multiple of 1 Plancklength, and let b be any
fractional amount of 1 Plancklength.
Then (a+b) and (a*b) makes sense, because the ratio b/a gives the
probability of the existence of (a+b), and also the probability of the
existence of (a*b).
The probability of existence (b/a) is the same for both (a+b) and
(a*b). This also happens to allow you to have an indeterminate
operator + or * .
a exists
b does not exist
We add or multiply them together to get a hybrid, which is
existentially indeterminate.
Allright then, yes, that was a stupid thing to say, and it also works.
I did not divide by b, I divided b/a.
It is a stupid thing to say, but it makes sense.
Yes.
It is STUPID to do math with numbers which do not exist, but IT WORKS.
Huang
The main thing to realize, in doing these types of manipulations is
that it Looks Like Math, and it Walks and Talks Like Math, -but- It Is
Not Neccesarily Mathematics !!
What we are doing is CONJECTURAL. And we use all the same symbology as
we do in math, but the original post is not mathematics, it is
conjectural modelling.
And these are conjectures which "may or may not be math", as
illustrated by the fact that (a+b) may or may not exist, and also
(a*b) may or may not exist.
Clearly then, we have the initial foundations of a systematic
conjectural methodology, which WILL produce QUANTITATIVE answers
regarding natural phenomena, and IS therefore VALID PHYSICS.
Mistress Helios
>
> - Show quoted text -
Surprises me that I can just come on here and start combining the
existent with the nonexistent, to cook up quasi-existence, existential
indeterminacy, and that nobody has the gonads to say something like
"You're fucking crazy - shut the hell up".
Nobody has the integrity to tell me to tell me how stupid it is ?
If I was teaching this stuff to your kid in college - you would not be
the least bit offended that Im indoctrinating your child into the
"cult of quantified nonsense" ?
amy666
quasi-existance is probably meant as quantum probability at existance.
i hope :)
David R Tribble
> Let a exist. Let b be nonexistent.
>
> probability of the existence of (a+b), and also the probability of the
> existence of (a*b).
>
> The probability of existence (b/a) is the same for both (a+b) and
> (a*b). This also happens to allow you to have an indeterminate
> operator + or * .
>
> a exists
> b does not exist
>
> We add or multiply them together to get a hybrid, which is
> existentially indeterminate.
Let x be a red number.
Let y be a blue number.
Then a+b and a*b make sense, because they are hybrid
numbers, neither red nor blue.
It's nice to see how that works, isn't it?
amy666
then
a+b = purple
a*b = ???
Mistress Helios
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the fine criticism, although it is probably not quite as
vigorous in it's rejection as I was hoping to elicit.
Regardless, I will launch into my vigorous defense as if I had been
attacked in the manner which I had been expecting.
If a exists and b does not exist, then the quantities (a+b) and (a*b)
are not the same thing as numbers as they exist in mathematics. I
would argue that it is indeterminate whether (a+b) and (a*b) are
numbers. It can be argued that it is a number by virtue of the
existent part a, and it can also be argued that it is nonsense by
virtue of the nonexistent part b. Both arguments are equally valid.
The net result is a state of indeterminacy.
So what I am doing here is not standard math at all, but a
_quantified_ methodology of conjecturing. It may look like math
because it is symbolic, but it cannot legitimately be called
mathematics, nor can it legitimately be called nonsense.
Interestingly, exactly as I had promised some weeks ago, this system
of conjecturing has one very interesting property. It can be
transformed into mathematics, and it can also be transformed into
nonsense. And for this system of reasoning to make any sense, or to be
of any use, it must always satisfy that requirement.
To demonstrate:
Making calculations using numbers of the form (a+b) and/or(a*b) where
everywhere b=0. This yields standard mathematics.
However !
Making calculations using numbers of the form (a+b) and/or (a*b) where
everywhere a=0. This yields _nonsense_ .
So, we have a reasoned methodology for making quantified statements
which is "other than mathematics proper". A system of making
conjectures. And the "existentially indeterminate numbers" of the form
(a+b) and (a*b) give expected values, and these expected values are
all we really care about ultimately.
It is legitimate, trivially, to _conjecture_ that the nonexistent has
magnitude.
It would also be legitimate to conjecture that this magnitude could be
added to an existent magnitude.
But the result of this conjectural reasoning cannot be said to be
nonconjectural, (a+b) and (a*b) are not existent numbers. They are
conjectured magnitudes that have expected values, and by virtue of
that I believe that the reasoning is legitimate.
The really interesting thing about this is that I cannot claim to have
contributed to mathematics, I could only claim a contribution to
science. Because it is indeterminate whether it is math or not,
however, ANY methodology which allows the quatitative analysis of
observed phenomena must be regarded as valid science. It seems to me
that mathematics is one way to model nature, but there may be others.
My claim is that this systematic conjectural methodology satisfies the
needs of any quantitative pursuit of truth by virtue of the fact that
it can be transformed into math as demonstrated above.
Mistress Helios
It is not wrong to _conjecture_ that there are pink elephants, UFO's,
Yetti, Loch Ness monster, or anything else.
One can even _conjecture_ that there may be tulips growing on the
surface of the sun.
These things are conjectural, and therefore they cannot be false.
Conjectures are neither true nor false. Conjectures are just that -
merely conjectures.
This does not negate the existence of truth. It merely says that
conjectures can be used to attempt to describe the truth without
explicitly defining it, and if those conjectures are quantitative
then they may actually be useful.
David R Tribble
>> Let a exist. Let b be nonexistent.
>
Mistress Helios wrote:
> If a exists and b does not exist, then the quantities (a+b) and (a*b)
> are not the same thing as numbers as they exist in mathematics.
If b does not exist, then there is nothing meaningful that can
be said about it.
Let b be the least even prime greater than 2. b does not exist, so
what other properties does b have? We can say nothing meaningful
about it. Or we can say anything at all about it, but such statements
would be utterly meaningless. But it would be pointless to say
anything at all.
amy666
hmmm
suppose a ' exists' and b ' does not '.
maybe we can define
a = [a]
and
b = []
and have some kind of set theory or mereology ?
consider equation f(x) = 0
solutions [a,b]
now say the equation only has one solution without multiplicity :
[a,b] = [a,[]] = [a]
regards
tommy1729
Mistress Helios
Believe me, I have a hard time disagreeing with you. It is easy to
look at this whole area and simply discard all of it.
I recall what one of my professors said once, (speaking about a
completely different issue) "If part of it is wrong then it's all
wrong, there is no in-between". His statement is true when one is
working in mathematics.
But Im not convinced that mathematics is the end-all be-all of
quantitative analysis. Mathematics is in some sense a quantification
of truth. You have 2 of these, 10 of those, 9 of the other, etc etc.
Can you quantify conjectures the same way sensibly ?
I have reasons to believe and reasons to disbelieve and they seem
equally convincing. It's very puzzling, trying to think and create
worked examples of using indeterminacy the way I'd like to. Im like a
chimpanzee who is attempting to invent counting. I dont think that
these kinds of problems have ever been done, and it seems that it must
be do-able, but I'm not satisfied that I've accomplished anything.
It's a great puzzle. But there are plenty of puzzles in the physics
lab too.
Im just glad that I dont have a career in science, because by now I
would have certainly been fired.
Mistress Helios
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you're a student you should probably disregard everything I have
been saying as complete nonsense, because I babble like/as an idiot.
But, assuming you are merely a person who wonders about this stuff and
that I am not distracting you from studying accepted science...
In math you have Yes and you have No. You dont have a Maybe unless you
construct it using probability theory. But, for all of it's apparent
irrefuteability, the presence of probability theory has some strange
consequences like AOC and some other things which are really quite
bizarre.
I do not question anything in probability theory. What interests me
the most is the very concept of indeterminacy, and just what it is, if
it is, where it is, why it is, and everything else about it.
If you have a line, and you say that the points along that line each
exist with probability 1/2, then you have a mental picture to start
from and you can take a look at what happens. Some things may seem to
make sense, other things seem quite hopeless. But one must _always_
remember when thinking in these areas, that this is an area which is
distinct from math. One cannot claim to be doing mathematics. It may
look like math because you are making symbolic manipulations, things
that look like geometry, but it is very different. I cannot be called
mathematics, nor am I convinced that it can be called nonsense.
spudnik
you waffle endlessly about quantification, and
is that not what is commonly accepted as mathematics,
in Galileo-I'm-such-an-heretic mode of empiricism?
of course, the English usage of "maths" is actually
more appropriate, whether they still cognize on that
as teh quadrivium, in the Harry Potter PSes.
yeah, so far, it's just silly; in deed,
you should shut the **** up, til you have got *some* thing. well,
I don't have to read it, any more, either.
lwa...@lausd.net
> > not exist, so
> > what other properties does b have? We can say nothing
> > meaningful
> > about it. Or we can say anything at all about it, but
> > such statements
> > would be utterly meaningless. But it would be
> > pointless to say
> > anything at all.
> consider equation f(x) = 0
> solutions [a,b]
> now say the equation only has one solution without multiplicity :
> [a,b] = [a,[]] = [a]
Interesting.
I remember in another thread several years ago, someone
once suggested that one could define division by zero,
a/0, as the empty set if ~a=0, and the set R of all
real numbers if a=0. Of course, that begs the question
why a/b is a _set_ (either 0 or R) if b=0, but a _real_
if ~b=0.
Mereology solves that problem. Assuming that we've
already defined the reals, we can let a/b be either
the fusion of all reals (if a=b=0), Bottom (i.e., the
empty object [], if ~a=0 and b=0), or the real a/b
itself (if ~b=0). Since a/b = [a/b] in mereology, we
don't have two separate cases (a set if b=0, a real if
~b=0) because these are the same type of object in the
flattened mereology, just as tommy1729 suggests (but
he generalizes to all equations with no unique
solution, not just division by zero).
The flattened mereology might also make interval
arithmetic easier to work with as well.
amy666
and once again a thread that ends up in set theory unexpected :)
Mistress Helios
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great feedback, I had never even heard of mereology until this thread.
Thanks for mentioning it, hopefully that will aid further research.
I put together a little diagram of what I'm thinking about. So often
it is easy to confuse concepts when they are written out in
words.....so I drew a picture.
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
Basically, this shows the relationship of the three different areas,
existence, nonexistence, and existential indeterminacy.
Much could be said about each individual area, but the only thing that
we really need to care about is how to connect them.
I think that the only thing which connects the world of mathematics to
the world of existential indeterminacy is probability theory and AOC
and things like that.
I think that there may be a connection here, a very peculiar one. It
is not a transform, or anything like that. More like a symmetry or
something.
A quick comment on existential indeterminacy, there are some things
about this that make alot of sense if you try to build a kind of
calculus based on existential indeterminacy. It is very promising in
many ways. But in many other ways it is quite strange. You have to get
used to crazy ideas such as anti-uniqueness and all sorts of insane
sounding things.
But, that is where my head is at these days, and my main effort is in
trying to sculpt some type of worked examples. The picture shows how
math appears to be flipped inside out using this line of reason, and
that is why I am skeptically hopeful that there will be some
possibility of making some type of reasoned statements.
wierd stuff
Mistress Helios
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
So, in the diagram above we have existence, nonexistence, and the
boundary which lies between them. The boundary is existentially
indeterminate. The boundary may or may not be there.
This implies that it is ineterminate whether the scalar boundary
points of physics are contained in physics, and I think that it is
indeterminate. In other words, it is indeterminate if a Plancklength
exists or not. A segment that small is like an endpoint in a sense,
and we cannot say whether or not it exists.
In mathematics, disorder is specious. In existentially indeterminacy
disorder is everywhere, and everything is held together with functions
which resemble PDFs.
So, it really is as if math had been flipped inside out. I seriously
wonder what good any of this might be.
Much more can be said about the diagram, I just dont have time at the
moment.
Han de Bruijn
>
> http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
Huh ? Buy _this_ print ?
> So, in the diagram above we have existence, nonexistence, and the
> boundary which lies between them. The boundary is existentially
> indeterminate. The boundary may or may not be there.
Blah ?
> This implies that it is ineterminate whether the scalar boundary
> points of physics are contained in physics, and I think that it is
> indeterminate. In other words, it is indeterminate if a Plancklength
> exists or not. A segment that small is like an endpoint in a sense,
> and we cannot say whether or not it exists.
Blah blah ?
> In mathematics, disorder is specious. In existentially indeterminacy
> disorder is everywhere, and everything is held together with functions
> which resemble PDFs.
Blah blah blah ?
> So, it really is as if math had been flipped inside out. I seriously
> wonder what good any of this might be.
Blah blah blah blah ?
> Much more can be said about the diagram, I just dont have time at the
> moment.
As an artist, you may be GOOD (nice pictures anyway). But guess this is
not the proper forum for you.
Han de Bruijn
Mistress Helios
> Mistress Helios wrote:
>
> >http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
>
> Huh ? Buy _this_ print ?
That's kind of a joke. Please do not purchase prints of that.
> > So, in the diagram above we have existence, nonexistence, and the
> > boundary which lies between them. The boundary is existentially
> > indeterminate. The boundary may or may not be there.
>
> Blah ?
What blah. It's perfectly valid thing to say.
> > This implies that it is ineterminate whether the scalar boundary
> > points of physics are contained in physics, and I think that it is
> > indeterminate. In other words, it is indeterminate if a Plancklength
> > exists or not. A segment that small is like an endpoint in a sense,
> > and we cannot say whether or not it exists.
>
> Blah blah ?
You have a better explanation of Plancklength ? Does it make sense
that there is such a thing as "the smallest possible segment" ?
I can justify some things by viewing indeterminacy in a very different
way. I dont think that is a better explanation.
> > In mathematics, disorder is specious. In existentially indeterminacy
> > disorder is everywhere, and everything is held together with functions
> > which resemble PDFs.
>
> Blah blah blah ?
Exactly what it says in the diagram. I could sit here and poke fun at
Axiom of Choice too, but Im quite sure that would not change your mind
about it.
In fact, you can either accept AOC or not. This suggests existential
indeterminacy of the choice function. Blah blah blah ?
> > So, it really is as if math had been flipped inside out. I seriously
> > wonder what good any of this might be.
>
> Blah blah blah blah ?
Yes, that was blah blah blah blah. Agreed, on the above paragraph
only.
> > Much more can be said about the diagram, I just dont have time at the
> > moment.
>
> As an artist, you may be GOOD (nice pictures anyway). But guess this is
> not the proper forum for you.
>
> Han de Bruijn
I suck as an artist. The best thing I ever did was to understand
indeterminacy, and I think that my model of it is perfectly
justifiable.
It may be trivial, but it does make sense. I'll try to get some more
diagrams to explain some other things I've found which tie in to this
which also seem to make perfect sense. Please remember, at one time
man could not even count coconuts, and there are many open questions
in science and even math.
bla bla bla -
amy666
> Mistress Helios wrote:
> >
> >
> http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality
> -108671643
>
oh cmon , it still less blah blah blah then JSH though still blah blah , so it fits well on sci.math :p
amy666
there is no proof of that.
i think man could count coconuts.
i have a background in bio as well.
i dont see how unsolved math or science ' defends ' your model.
i prefer matheyasevich.
>
> bla bla bla -
>
blah blah blah !!
Denis Feldmann
> there is no proof of that.
>
> i think man could count coconuts.
>
> i have a background in bio as well.
>
> i dont see how unsolved math or science ' defends ' your model.
>
>
> i prefer matheyasevich.
Dont know who that guy cold be. Could you at least make the effort of
checking the spelling (for instance at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Matiyasevich)
amy666
yes thats him.
sorry for the spelling !
regards
tommy1729
amy666
btw Denis wrote ' cold be ' instead of ' could be '
:)
its a law on sci.math ...
spudnik
Man could always count *with* coconuts;
just don't hang-out underneath even one!
> man could not even count coconuts, and there are many open questions
thus:
truly, they were the most-obvious-ever-Druids-award kind
of Druids, but that doesn't mean, they were really fake, and
lots of kids have used better-quality 2-by-9s;
farmer's are good business men, two. D&D,
not the world's greatest carpenters!
> I will guess that Wookiepoopya has no rational explanation
> for cropcircles, other than "Doug and Dave
> with *a hole pile* of 2by9s."
thus:
groovier than a pile of rocks,
just by comparison with the Face and Genitals ... a-hem;
Stranger in "a" Strange Land territory.
thus:
dood was totally quanta; I mean, if
you're going to say "it's a singleton -- yeah;
that's what it is!" well, OK;
what spin does it partake of -- is it a fermion?
I know, there are those of you who'd jump
on the answer, "weellll, if there's only one?" -- and
so would I, myself & what's-his-name; me, not just so as
to not fall into the Many Universes default; except,
when I'm "@Nancago.edU of." -- death to the triangle!
any way, Stanton F. is higher than a pile of rocks, iff
you listen to Art Bell et sequentia Al Nouri;
is his first name really Albert?... does Bell parlay
of distance at a spooky action, huge media conglome,
semiotic highway signage?... oh, my;
they are actually better than cropcircles, if
you can just get the slant on the "correct side;"
even a mobius strip has at least one!
thus:
did Copernicus expose Ptolemy's hoax?... and, if not,
how'd you know that it was wrong --
did you know that the sky is round?
Mistress Helios
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/Philosophical-considerations-108866414
The above diagram shows the most compelling geometric reason why I
continue to pursue this line of reasoning, which I admit is very crazy
sounding at times, and most likely an exercise in triviality. I know
this.
So, the only way that Plancklength makes any sense to me is that if a
segment of length were graduated by Plancklengths, that those
graduations would not have definite position. The graduations should
be indeterminately configured, and this gives a direct motivation to
consider whether points exist probabilistically.
In the diagram I put the words "function" and "number" in quotes,
because their existence has not yet made clear in this context, I use
them as handy terms for illustrative purposes, hence the quote marks.
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
The above diagram shows that I am working in an area that is expected
to be everywhere trivial, but consistent. The only thing that might
exist in this area is an item that I have dubbed the existential
potential function. This function basically performs the reverse
operation of the random variable in standard mathematics.
The existential potential function lives in a world of indeterminacy,
and it hypothesiszes order. The exact opposite of rolling dice or
flipping coins in deterministic environment like standard mathematics.
Ultimately, I expect that this line of reasoning should be able to
explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment analytically, wierd behavior of
polarized light, Paulus' Femtosecond Intereference experiments, wave-
particle duality, and many other things.
I can also use this framework to argue, decisively, that the question
whether the universe is determined or not, that the answer is quite
simply that it is indeterminate whether or not it is deterministic /
indeterministic.
typos left intact to enhace irritability
Denis Feldmann
It's quite easy to make those spelling mistakes (actually misclicks),
and not important for the understanding. Otoh, proper spelling of proper
names (and of technical terms) is important, as for instance in this
case, a reader who have nor heard of Yuri Matiyasevich would have had
trouble understanding you, and a reader who knows him could well
suspect you are just throwing names around, without much knowledge of
who they are...
amy666
but google would say : did you mean Yuri Matiyasevich ?
Tim BandTech.com
> On Jan 1, 1:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let a exist. Let b be nonexistent.
>
> > fractional amount of 1 Plancklength.
>
> > probability of the existence of (a+b), and also the probability of the
> > existence of (a*b).
>
> > The probability of existence (b/a) is the same for both (a+b) and
> > (a*b). This also happens to allow you to have an indeterminate
> > operator + or * .
>
> > a exists
> > b does not exist
>
> > We add or multiply them together to get a hybrid, which is
> > existentially indeterminate.
>
> > I did not divide by b, I divided b/a.
>
> > It is a stupid thing to say, but it makes sense.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > It is STUPID to do math with numbers which do not exist, but IT WORKS.
>
> The main thing to realize, in doing these types of manipulations is
> that it Looks Like Math, and it Walks and Talks Like Math, -but- It Is
> Not Neccesarily Mathematics !!
>
> What we are doing is CONJECTURAL. And we use all the same symbology as
> we do in math, but the original post is not mathematics, it is
> conjectural modelling.
I would modify conjectural to constructional. You are free to
construct what you wish. The consequences of the construction will
hopefully be leading and lay out their own consequences. When such a
construction is found then it is worth sniffing it out a bit further.
The promise of the construction lays merely in its consequences so you
need not take it too personally, your own belief or even disbelief in
the construction is malleable and is at the human level of emotion.
It is necessary to take the gamble; put yourself out there; unafraid
of the consequences; not about a grade in some class of near pure
mimicry. Yours is a variation and such things deserve their own credit
even if they ultimately fail. Every variation taken is worthy since
they steer future variations. How many great variations ought there to
be? If parallel theories are permitted then the quantity of these
greats may be trivially large. Then their mappings in the modern
language form a gook of accumulation that is not even worth bothering
with. You are not only free to construct from the existent language...
You are free to construct the language as well. The failings of the
existent language may come to surface at which point a contradiction
for the larger state has been achieved. This form of renaissance is
not to be taken lightly, but then too its weight is much too heavy for
one to handle alone. To be out there on the edge... well, you will
have to come back to the boring daily grind... unless you can gather
up some supporters to head out there with you. This is not a question
of your own sanity. It is more a question of your validity in the eyes
of others. We are caught as social beings. It is not a pretty scene.
Here on USENET we do see the human limitations which are hidden in
academia from our perception so that they may be more convincing with
their own constructions. The absurdity grows old for me and I do have
other interests to pursue.
I would try to correct the conjecture context used here since it is
not quite as I see it.
Conjecture is when we have a strong indication that something is true
but we lack a complete proof of that conjecture. For instance in my
own work I am comfortable that the object which I have named 'signon'
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
does pack its space though I do not have a full proof.
These circulations are not unlike electromagnetic behaviors and I do
like them, but I haven't gotten anywhere with them recently. Still,
their rules are clear and simplistic. Anyway, I attempt to correct the
usage of the word conjecture here. There are strong conjectures and
there are weak conjectures. There are false conjectures and there are
true conjectures. What makes them conjecture is when they are
unproven. But I do believe that a conjecture is the resultant of a
construction rather than within the constructions own basis. Upon
building a construction out of a conjecture it might be said that the
construction has a weakness. Then nailing down that conjecture would
be important and leading as a guidance itself for future development.
I do think you are in the realm of math or logic or philosophy or even
perhaps physics if the consequences lay themselves down in unison with
reality.
- Tim
>
> And these are conjectures which "may or may not be math", as
spudnik
other than shrug to death (y'know,
Atlas did that after trying to read the book .-)
"Ultimately" compelling you to put-up or
give-it-up. ah, Hell;
it's clearly some sort of zero-dimensional Rhorshach,
the amazing photon. do you not know,
that wave-particle duality is entirely a bogus matter,
completely dyssolved by Dirac & Schroedinger's Joke,
a simple variant of the "two-column proofs"
of projective geometry?... Pascal, yeah!
at least, you get to wrok on your rhetorical skill,
pursuing the trivium ad vomitorium --
thank you, Doctor Spock!
> > did you know that the sky is round?
>
> http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/Philosophical-considerati...
> The above diagram shows the most compelling geometric reason why I
> continue to pursue this line of reasoning, which I admit is very
> http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
> Ultimately, I expect that this line of reasoning should
> be able to explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment
> analytically, wierd behavior of polarized light,
> Paulus' Femtosecond Intereference experiments, wave-
> particle duality, and many other things.
thus:
ms. Savant had a similar problem expose,
relating to the ages of siblings,
in which she seems to have mistakenly
taken them to be doors. well,
y'make a better floor, than a door, Contestant!
thus:
however, the *shape* of teh coat-
hangar is *extremely* critical.
> Yo, G, reading problems? He agrees it is a crock.
thus:
photon is nonsequiteroxymoronmisnomer,
Moon hits your eye *like* a big-a piizza pie-a;
look at the structure of the "rods & cones...."
an oscilliscopic trace of electronic current
in a wire is Minkowsian timespace (1+1)d,
often callibrated using a Clifford algebra, but
it is actually a spatial phenomenon
of the wire; perhaps the oscillisc. trace is good
as a projection of that.
> > >http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif
> > Compare withhttp://users.accesscomm.ca/john/PHOTON.GIF
Mistress Helios
in response to Tim and others...
referring to the images located here >>
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/triviality-108671643
http://heliumxenonphoton.deviantart.com/art/Philosophical-considerations-108866414
I think that you are right about the word conjecture to some extent,
but in a sense that term does seem to fit. This model is very strange
and it really is difficult to describe some of this stuff using
English.\
There are conjectures in science which are really "well founded
speculations". I am trying to use the term to describe statements
which are neither proveable, nor disproveable. They are conjectural by
design, and they cannot be resolved because they are inherently
indeterministic.
Some examples of what I mean from mathematics:
You can make all kinds of conjectural relationships regarding zero.
Consider the relationship
y = o*x
You can easily, and correctly argue that
y = o*x = 0*x^2 + 0*x + 0
and also that
y = o*x = O*x^n + 0*x^(n-1) + ... + 0*x^2 + 0*x + 0 for all n in Z
> 0
You could start saying other strange things which are also trivially
true, and build a whole theory based on zero.
I feel that this is basically what my model does for physics, but
there is a big difference. In my model, zero can imply "no space",
i.e. nothingness, and I give it magnitude.
To do this, one must make conjectures because it is unproveable. I
believe that the quantum scale is en existential boundary, and so
these kinds of conjectures might be useful to QM.
amy666
your conjecture holds.
amy666
see euler graph. ( graph theory )
happy newyear timothy
regards
tommy1729
Mistress Helios
> > > > And these are conjectures which "may or may not
> > be
> > > math", as
> > > > illustrated by the fact that (a+b) may or may
> > not
> > > exist, and also
> > > > (a*b) may or may not exist.
>
> > > > Clearly then, we have the initial foundations of
> > a
> > > systematic
> > > > conjectural methodology, which WILL produce
> > > QUANTITATIVE answers
> > > > regarding natural phenomena, and IS therefore
> > VALID
> > > PHYSICS.
>
> > your conjecture holds.
>
> see euler graph. ( graph theory )
>
> happy newyear timothy
>
> regards
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Happy New Year to you too Tim.
I think that just about everything I have been doing so far is valid,
because I im fully aware that it is all trivial.
You can argue that 0 = 5*0, and you can also argue that 0 = 9*0. When
you play with zero you do not really have uniqueness as it appears
elsewhere in math.
The same thing is true of this wierd area I am in. And because I am
working on a boundary, and it is indeterminate whether that boundary
is contained in physics or not, it may be the case that it is
indeterminate whether it is trivial or not.
That is why even though Einstein said God Dont Play Dice, it is
possible to argue that the Theory Of Relativity should have been named
"Theory Of Indeterminacy Of Motion". Or, one can validly argue as
Eainstein does. Very wierd.
amy666
undecidability is about math and vice versa.
furthermore : einstein was also a founder of QM.
dont forget that.
regards
tommy1729
Mistress Helios
>
> undecidability is about math and vice versa.
Math is about undecidability [and] undecidability is about math, eh ?
Where does decideability fit in this picture ? Are you suggesting that
most of math (the decideable part) is actually not math ?
> furthermore : einstein was also a founder of QM.
>
> dont forget that.
Dont forget what ?
gabydewilde
> > illustrated by the fact that (a+b) may or may not exist, and also
> > (a*b) may or may not exist.
>
> > Clearly then, we have the initial foundations of a systematic
> > conjectural methodology, which WILL produce QUANTITATIVE answers
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> existent with the nonexistent, to cook up quasi-existence, existential
> indeterminacy, and that nobody has the gonads to say something like
> "You're fucking crazy - shut the hell up".
>
> Nobody has the integrity to tell me to tell me how stupid it is ?
>
If that is what you want to hear we can tell you.
> If I was teaching this stuff to your kid in college - you would not be
> the least bit offended that Im indoctrinating your child into the
> "cult of quantified nonsense" ?
The college is the nonsense. Nothing wrong with raising your own kids.
Worked just fine for a million years.
Put kids on a stool and force them to learn things? What disgusting
idea?
Kids should be outside playing, hurting themselves, bleeding, crying,
breaking stuff, eating their toys, tearing up their cloths etc
Adults with different ideas should be decapitated for public
entertainment and public education.
What do you think? Is that enough integrity for one day?
Mistress Helios
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you expect me to _pay_ to be educated, then you'll have to teach me
what I tell you to. Afterall, I am the customer.
Your only defense, in failing to teach courses on existential
indeterminacy, is that by virtue of being fundamentally trivial,
teaching it might be equivalent to teaching nothing at all.....but you
did'nt say that. I did.
Just pretend I didnt say that.
Thanks
gabydewilde
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you expect me to _pay_ to be educated, then you'll have to teach me
> what I tell you to. Afterall, I am the customer.
>
1) Consumers get to pay in all possible ways.
2) You pay to have your kids turned into consumers.
3) back to (1)
> Your only defense, in failing to teach courses on existential
> indeterminacy, is that by virtue of being fundamentally trivial,
> teaching it might be equivalent to teaching nothing at all.....
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz9_o76zYQ8-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you expect me to _pay_ to be educated, then you'll have to teach me
> what I tell you to. Afterall, I am the customer.
>
1) Consumers get to pay in all possible ways.
2) You pay to have your kids turned into consumers.
3) back to (1)
> Your only defense, in failing to teach courses on existential
> indeterminacy, is that by virtue of being fundamentally trivial,
> teaching it might be equivalent to teaching nothing at all.....
If you would have studied more you would know the value of trained
consumers. Imagine how much work it is to tune a mind that is set to
learn and discover into a mind that isn't interested in anything new.
It goes well beyond the trivial. The mind has to be shaped to look at
trivial matters as-if important.
If you want to know if X is nonsense or not all you have to ask
yourself is: "what is the practical application of X". Everything else
is noise.
All of a sudden myspace becomes more scientific than space time.
*shrug*
> but you did'nt say that. I did.
>
> Just pretend I didnt say that.
>
> Thanks
Sure no problem.
Mistress Helios
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > If you expect me to _pay_ to be educated, then you'll have to teach me
> > what I tell you to. Afterall, I am the customer.
>
> 1) Consumers get to pay in all possible ways.
>
> 2) You pay to have your kids turned into consumers.
>
> 3) back to (1)
>
> > Your only defense, in failing to teach courses on existential
> > indeterminacy, is that by virtue of being fundamentally trivial,
> > teaching it might be equivalent to teaching nothing at all.....
>
> If you would have studied more you would know the value of trained
> consumers. Imagine how much work it is to tune a mind that is set to
> learn and discover into a mind that isn't interested in anything new.
> It goes well beyond the trivial. The mind has to be shaped to look at
> trivial matters as-if important.
>
> If you want to know if X is nonsense or not all you have to ask
> yourself is: "what is the practical application of X". Everything else
> is noise.
>
> All of a sudden myspace becomes more scientific than space time.
> *shrug*
I'll take MySpace over the Copenhagen Interpretation any day.
Does it really make any sense that one can "observe things into
existence" ?
I do not know if this line of reason would lead to any useful math/
engineering, but if nothing else at least you get a physics which does
not allow the universe to created by virtue of me observing it. That
is just silly.
spudnik
"Mousieur Pascal at your service!"
"Je suis M. Desaurges, mon plesieur!"
"M. Brianchon, ici; nous avons trois deomonstrations
de la theorem "dernier" du Fermat, simulatamousement
dans trois columns."
Pascal dit, "Gentile-hommes,
nous-sommes proceeder...."
Mistress Helios
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate, but let me try this
on you:
There is a difference between triviality and nonsense. Triviality is
_not_ the same as nonsense.
In physics, the smallest possible length is 1 Plancklength. My claim
is that anything from 0 to 1 Plancklength is not nonsensical, but
trivial. And there is a difference. We attempt to understand that
difference on philosophical and analytical grounds, and that is what
we do because we are right.
Your "fear" of philosophy is a bit ironic, as mathematics is nothing
more than just that. Philosophy.
That is what this thread is all about. I have no idea what you are
trying to communicate, but if you can explain a little further
please....maybe I can understand.