Fwd: reddit/com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec (**G***rave*) (formatt!ng om^tted)

4 views
Skip to first unread message

LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw

unread,
Apr 28, 2016, 4:35:08 AM4/28/16
to cxmpl...@googlegroups.com

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/OHtP-cNy5jM/BRe6JRmcsFQJ
On Monday, October 13, 2014 at 11:00:00 AM UTC-6, LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw wrote:
Page 1 (post #823)

"Daddy's Lambo": you gon have to be a little more specific, RVcCDRzjtWg by Pt-Ir_parsecin freeforall

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, The Most Popular Physics Book Ever Written, Now Completely Online • /r/books by Pt-Ir_parsecin cxmplxplura

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 18 hours ago 

user page: "does not exist"

to /r/reddit.com/ sent 5 minutes ago

I can login still, obviously, but my new posts (/r/cxmplxplura) are not showing up. Start: https://www.reddit.com/r/cxmplxplura/comments/2eu4kn/the_feynman_lectures_on_physics_the_most_popular/cl7phpf .

I can, when logged in, see my own user profile; and the new posts there.

Am I pariah?

"Big Sean - Paradise (Explicit) ":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1JiOZ1zp4

permalink reply

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, The Most Popular Physics Book Ever Written, Now Completely Online • /r/books by Pt-Ir_parsecin cxmplxplura

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 18 hours ago 

http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/2j1xqb/an_issue_regarding_precision/

" Removed immediately

In the spring of 2006 I had some free time, which I used to do somethink I - looking back - probably should have done while younger. I went about deriving math "from the ground up". Please stick with me, nothing too crazy, but I do have an intriguing issue of precision. Which, unless I am, incredibly, proven foolish, will have wide-ranging implications; though, at the same time, "changes nothing".

I have a strong background in science. I went to grad school in chemical engineering at Cal, under Nitash Balsara. I didn't consider this issue of precision during my time there. Neither did I consider it in undergrad (Chemical Engineering, RPI). Nor did I consider it, where it likely should have come up, in high school. That is to say, my concern is something I would expect motivated high-schoolers to be able to handle.

I won't belabor the maths. The conclusion is well acknowledged, though not well respected. This concerns the mathematical figure called Pi (T| hereafter). Every person who has ever derived T| comes to a similar conclusion, and I am no exception. T| is called an "irrational" number. Thinking about it these past couple days, I wonder if it might be better to call it a definite anti-number (but that is neither here nor there). The point being, T| is such that it would take forever-and-a-day to calculate precisely. That much is utterly non-controversial.

However, the physics community (to the best of my knowledge: I have been "out of touch" for these past years), and the math community, engineering community, etc. and etc., use T| not only as a constant, but, also, does not treat it as different in character from the integers. An equation with T| pops up all over the place, and it is treated as a petty constant to be simply plugged into calculations. 3.14 (3,14 in Europe) is "good enough for government work", I am not arguing otherwise. But, the "irrationality" of T| means that T| is a (and an infinite) process (thus, perhaps better termed, a definite anti-number). In my derivation (which I am inclined to believe is akin to the one the first human mathematicians to derive it produced), I carried an "x" factor. That factor "rapidly" approaches unity, as it should, and thus preserves the effectiveness of the calculations to which we are accustomed; but again, I'm philosophically interested in this issue of precision, in thought and representation.

T| is a process. I am possessed of the positive philosophical, metaphysical, 'work' as well, but I won't belabor that here (at least not initially). T| is a process. Unless, we are to presume that dumb "matter" is possessed of a (rational) "knowledge" of a T| which is no process... But that "unless", we might agree, is absurd. T| is an infinite process that converges toward a definite ... I'll say "fixing".

My point here is that T| should carry a unit of irrationality (x-factor) through the calculations wherever we are found. This unit should be seen in the basic demonstration of dimensional analysis ("a little leaven leavens the whole loaf"?). It is a contradiction to know that T| is "irrational", yet treat it as a "rational" constant. Again, there can be no element, no sub-atomic "devil" particle, and even no "universe" (nor multi-verse) which knows the fullness of T|. And that's worth KNOWING! It is misleading to throw T| into calculations without paying deference to the inherent, fundamental, and Necessary "irrationality", or process, of "it".

Objections?

Peace, "

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/mLONtOOuRgA/1xz_sY5x-psJ

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2014-October/073586.html

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2014-October/073586.html^['MOON']_http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/2j1xqb/an_issue_regarding_precision/^http://www.redditlog.com/snapshots/1116993 by Pt-Ir_parsecin cxmplxplura

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 19 hours ago 

"Reddit /user/Pt-Ir_parsec poweroutage":

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rp-discuss/mLONtOOuRgA

Evolution possible ifF God $erves Ycxp8XMfQVd4T n.3:42 PM (1 minute ago)

http://www.redditlog.com/snapshots/1117001

http://www.reddit.com/r/cxmplxplura/comments/2j24yb/httplistsmoqtalkorgpipermailmoq/

https://np.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ipzq9/when_will_the_worldclass_physicists_earn_the_my/

http://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/2j1xqb/an_issue_regarding_precision/

http://np.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofMath/comments/2iq6wx/when_will_the_worldclass_physicists_earn_the_my/

http://np.reddit.com/r/puremathematics/comments/2iq7ut/httpsnpredditcomrasksciencecomments2ipzq9when/

https://np.reddit.com/r/logic/comments/2iq5x9/when_will_the_worldclass_physicists_earn_the_my/

http://www.reddit.com/r/cxmplxplura/comments/2iq718/httpsnpredditcomrasksciencecomments2ipzq9when/

https://np.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/2ih9xu/httpbooksgooglecombooksidvaiqaaaayaajotsw5xkmpbykt/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/2ih9xu/httpbooksgooglecombooksidvaiqaaaayaajotsw5xkmpbykt/

http://www.reddit.com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec

https://www.reddit.com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec

https://np.reddit.com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec

http://np.reddit.com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec

"[MD] MOQ is good. What is it good for?", Andre Broersen, Sun Oct 12 12:57:57 PDT 2014:

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2014-October/073586.html

(see also mirrorsite: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/moq-discuss/F3FHQhXPH5g)

Andre Broersen1:58 PM (1 hour ago)

Other recipients: moq_d...@lists.moqtalk.org

Dear MOQ’ers

Some time ago ( Wed, sept 14) John M said:

The MOQ isn't a living, dynamic entity. It is a static intellectual pattern. It was made at a point in time by one person, in the midst of his own unique circumstances. But it doesn't fit mine,…’

Andre:

This „ it doesn’t fit mine” keeps on bothering me a bit. We’ve had so many people here who eventually left (in frustration may I add) because there crept in an anomaly with what they considered to be the MOQ…i.e.what Pirsig was talking about and their own experience of the perspective furnished by this self same MOQ as devised by Pirsig.

We have seen good, well-intentioned people leaving this discussion because their experience did not seam well with the MOQ as represented in LILA, defended by the likes of Anthony, dmb, Arlo, Ron and Dan. They argued a discrepancy between their living of the MOQ (as they experienced it) and Pirsig’s deposition thereof in LILA.

LILA is a book…an exposition of the insights of a very special person who, as Cat Stevens once poetically said ¨turned the world to order” ( the song Jesus on Buddha and the Chocolate Box). And, boy this world needs to be turned to order… . It’s a karmic mess…we all know it, see it, feel it and when we look honestly we see that the MOQ tells us how. The nice thing of course is that it does not give us any definite answers! Thank goodness for that. Otherwise we’re be stuck with another dogma.

It does give us pointers.

And because Pirsig did ( when you are…and certainly you are) lend assistance to a living, sentient being with the ordering of the interpretation of our experience he thereby presents us with a clear starting point that is ever changing and ever renewed.

It is good to have a solid foundation from which to see, feel, hear and argue. This is not dogma…it is realizing that words are simply pointers. And it is important to get the words right. And once the words are in place they are properly understood…in the context within which they receive their fullest meaning and explanatory power.

In the same way that a menu is a pointer to the food it does not and cannot be a substitute or a guarantee for the quality of the food that ends up on your plate. No matter what the menu says…there is no guarantee that it is going to be to your liking… and pay special attention here to the word/concept YOUR.

If the food does not agree with you…are you going to blame the menu…the waiter, the cook, the butter, the oil, the heat, the oven, the weather…your mechanic. your wife, your children, the maid, your bank manager, your pet, your tools, the class room, the sun set, the Middle East, the IS, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Krishnamurti…Pirsig?

I have said it before and will say it again: the MOQ is NOT a personal scrip for changing the world. It is a worldly scrip for changing your self. It is a signifier dancing (DQ) the conditioned towards…?

It is a sign pointing towards the moon. We can pretend to be responsible for the best sexual experiences in the world. We can pretend to be the best celebrities in the world with the the highest status and the most money in the bank. We can pretend to be the smartest intellectually productive thought producers in the world . But that is NOT what it’s about.

Were here to see the moon…that’s all. Realize Rta/dharma. That’s the clearest pointer of an idea you can get.

And there is nothing personal in that. As a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with ¨mine” or yours or me or you. Perhaps that is the most difficult illusion to overcome.

And it is the oldest idea known to man. (LILA,p 390)

Namaste.

Moq_Discuss mailing list

Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.

http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives:

http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html

An issue regarding precision by Pt-Ir_parsecin Physics

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 20 hours ago 

Removed immediately

In the spring of 2006 I had some free time, which I used to do somethink I - looking back - probably should have done while younger. I went about deriving math "from the ground up". Please stick with me, nothing too crazy, but I do have an intriguing issue of precision. Which, unless I am, incredibly, proven foolish, will have wide-ranging implications; though, at the same time, "changes nothing".

I have a strong background in science. I went to grad school in chemical engineering at Cal, under Nitash Balsara. I didn't consider this issue of precision during my time there. Neither did I consider it in undergrad (Chemical Engineering, RPI). Nor did I consider it, where it likely should have come up, in high school. That is to say, my concern is something I would expect motivated high-schoolers to be able to handle.

I won't belabor the maths. The conclusion is well acknowledged, though not well respected. This concerns the mathematical figure called Pi (T| hereafter). Every person who has ever derived T| comes to a similar conclusion, and I am no exception. T| is called an "irrational" number. Thinking about it these past couple days, I wonder if it might be better to call it a definite anti-number (but that is neither here nor there). The point being, T| is such that it would take forever-and-a-day to calculate precisely. That much is utterly non-controversial.

However, the physics community (to the best of my knowledge: I have been "out of touch" for these past years), and the math community, engineering community, etc. and etc., use T| not only as a constant, but, also, does not treat it as different in character from the integers. An equation with T| pops up all over the place, and it is treated as a petty constant to be simply plugged into calculations. 3.14 (3,14 in Europe) is "good enough for government work", I am not arguing otherwise. But, the "irrationality" of T| means that T| is a (and an infinite) process (thus, perhaps better termed, a definite anti-number). In my derivation (which I am inclined to believe is akin to the one the first human mathematicians to derive it produced), I carried an "x" factor. That factor "rapidly" approaches unity, as it should, and thus preserves the effectiveness of the calculations to which we are accustomed; but again, I'm philosophically interested in this issue of precision, in thought and representation.

T| is a process. I am possessed of the positive philosophical, metaphysical, 'work' as well, but I won't belabor that here (at least not initially). T| is a process. Unless, we are to presume that dumb "matter" is possessed of a (rational) "knowledge" of a T| which is no process... But that "unless", we might agree, is absurd. T| is an infinite process that converges toward a definite ... I'll say "fixing".

My point here is that T| should carry a unit of irrationality (x-factor) through the calculations wherever we are found. This unit should be seen in the basic demonstration of dimensional analysis ("a little leaven leavens the whole loaf"?). It is a contradiction to know that T| is "irrational", yet treat it as a "rational" constant. Again, there can be no element, no sub-atomic "devil" particle, and even no "universe" (nor multi-verse) which knows the fullness of T|. And that's worth KNOWING! It is misleading to throw T| into calculations without paying deference to the inherent, fundamental, and Necessary "irrationality", or process, of "it".

Objections?

Peace,

0

When will the worldclass physicists earn the ^my certificate of equi-valence in high school (T|) Geometry? The i'nherent **Un**certainty ofF I'deal Mutual Reciprocity; : askscience ::: coming soon to a theatre near you : logic >"[Reddit]you are doing that too much. try again in 8^www|np minutes." (np.reddit.com)

submitted 4 days ago by Pt-Ir_parsec to /r/PhilosophyofMath

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages