View Full Version : Create or die (a 3 months team mission)
The goal of this thread is to find a logical reasoning system, which can be used as a common basis for both our morality development and our technological developments.
If we achieve this goal, then I think we improve our chances to survive the power of our technology.
================================================== ========================
If we look at Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm we can find parameter L.
L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations, or in other worlds, if there is no natural catastrophe in some given planet, then how some civilization survives the power of its own technology?
If we look on our civilization, I think that we cannot ignore L and in this case we should ask every day "how we survive the power of our technology?"
My work for the last 20 years is one of many possible ways to answer this every day question.
Though my research I have found that if some civilization has no balance between its morality level and its technological level, then there is a very high probability that its L= some n , or in other words it is no longer exists.
Now, let us look at our L and let us ask ourselves: "Do we do all what we have to do in order to avoid some n?"
Most of the power of our technology is based on the Language of Mathematics and its reasoning, where the current reasoning is generally based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, and there is nothing in this reasoning which researches the most important question which is: "How do we use this powerful Language in order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Language of Mathematics has nothing to do with these kinds of questions", then in my opinion we quickly bring ourselves to find the exact n of our L.
In my opinion, in order to avoid the final n of our L, we have no choice but to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level within the framework of what is called the Language of Mathematics.
Furthermore, we should not leave this question to be answered beyond the framework of our scientific methods, because no other framework, accept our scientific method can really determinate the destiny of our L.
================================================== ========================
THE GAME FOR OUR LIFE
Let us say that we are members of a team that have exactly 3 months to live, unless we create a useful pure mathematical system.
For this mission we have no choice but to define these independent concepts:
1) Emptiness (notated by {})
2) Fullness (notated by {__})
3) A point (notated by {.}}
4) A segment or interval (notated by {._.}
Some initial terms:
$Tautology:
The identity of a thing to itself.
(It means that in this framework we do not need 'if, then' proposition in order to define the self existence of some element, which means A=A holds without using ‘if, then’ proposition)
$Set:
A $set is a collection of objects in which order has no significance, and multiplicity is also ignored.
$Multiset:
A $set-like object in which order is ignored, but multiplicity is explicitly significant.
$Singleton $set:
A $set having exactly one element a. A $singleton $set is denoted by {a}, which is an example of a collction of exactly one element.
$Urelement:(no internal parts)
An $urelement contains no elements, belongs to some $set, and it is not identical to a $set that has no collection of elements in it.
‘=’ notation is used for both $tautology (4=4) and quantity equality (4=2+2), which means that this system has to distinguish between elements not only by their quantity and/or order, but also by their structural properties, for example:
0 = .
1 = 0_1
2 = 0__2
3 = 0___3
4 = 0____4
are all $tautologies, where 4 = 3+1 (for example) is not a $tautology but quantity equality between the two different structures {0____4} and {0___3, 0_1}.
Also any arbitrary segment can be considered as 1, and in this case the rest segments heve their unique notations according to this segment.
Please give your ideas that can help us to survive this mission, thank you.
(All I have to say in this thread can be found only in the opening post, so any dialog with me will be only about the initial conditions, and how to correct them, if you think that they need to be tuned.
It means that I leave the stage for other persons who wish to develop a system from these initial conditions, thank you)
These are only initial conditions, so do what you think is needed to do in order to develop a useful system.
But please do that without ignoring any of the initial conditions.
================================================== ========================
The nature of this thread (Topic)
The nature of this thread needs more time to develop a meaningful posts because it gives an opportunity to each participator in it to show how he uses its own abilities to survive an unfamiliar situation, which is basically different from what he have learned in the standard academic system.
1) You have to define the initial conditions by yourself (by using your own abilities to survive after 3 months).
2) In order to do that, you have no choice but to look at this situation from a new point of view, which is not the standard logical reasoning of 0_XOR_1, which stands in the basis the standard academic system.
Tom Mattson
Aug12-04, 09:44 AM
Do you have any idea how we survive this mission?
Would you mind explaining to me how this thread is any different from the one that I just locked?
Hi Tom,
A Good question.
Instead of talking about my theory, I give some initial conditions, and let the presons in this forum the chance to do the job by using their own abilities.
In short, I am not going to talk about my work in this thread.
matt grime
Aug12-04, 10:09 AM
will anyone offer me odds on that?
It does differ in that no one has yet asked a question that Doron has refused to answer which was one of the reasons the last thread was locked, wasn't it? I am sure though that any questions will only be met with evasion or more ill defined terms, so I'm sure this'll get locked soon enough.
No Matt, The Idea is that This time you do the job by yourself.
All I have to say in this thread can be found only in the opening post, and this time any dialog with me will be only about this first post, and how to correct it, if you think that it need to be tuned.
ex-xian
Aug12-04, 02:02 PM
My first question to whoever is going to kill us is, "Why do you use the word 'tautology' when you obviously don't mean 'tautology?'"
That is, I'm wondering why they misuse words to suit their own purposes. Why do they take words that everyone understands and apply their own meanings?
That is, I'm wondering why they misuse words to suit their own purposes. Why do they take words that everyone understands and apply their own meanings?
Because Lama is a crackpot, and this is what crackpots do.
- Warren
arildno
Aug12-04, 02:11 PM
I don't think it's the Lama's who are going to kill us, ex-xian (or spit on us or whatever); rather, it is the noble, persecuted community of true Lamas which face destruction unless they can develop a truly great maths based on the teachings of the Great Lama.
Hence, his Lord's post is an urgent call to all the Lamas in the world to produce math, unless they wish to die.
Or something like that..
Come on people,
Please take my first post as a model of not particular known group of people, which find themselves in this situation (like some scene in a movie).
Then please try to start from the initial conditions that can be found in the first post.
I do not know what is going to happen exactly as any other person who read the first post.
ex-xian
Aug12-04, 04:01 PM
Come on people,
Please take my first post as a model of not particular known group of people, which find themselves in this situation (like some scene in a movie).
Then please try to start from the initial conditions that can be found in the first post.
I do not know what is going to happen exactly as any other person who read the first post.
Lama, I posted a question for the executioners. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Ok, I do not no how to answer to your question because I did not learn this particular subject.
More then that, I am sure that there are a lot of subjects in Math that I did not learn.
But I learned very well the most fundamental concepts in their most fundamental states.
Lama,
You are truly one of the most prolific and staunch crackpots I've ever met. I applaud you.
- Warren
Ok, after you all know that I am a crackpot and so on, please read the first post and offer your own solutions, thank you.
Our solution is that you need to go to school and learn mathematics before trying to overturn it. You don't make any sense. You've been posting this same stuff for years on several different forums, and you're always greeted with the same responses. What does that tell you?
- Warren
I have changed any familiar nameS of standard Math that appears in the first post, by adding a '$' prefix to it.
So now let us say that we are starting from scratch.
After all we are in a theory development forum, isn't it?
That's great, but your definitions themselves don't make any sense. Futhermore, you certainly have not provided a rigorous definition of something so complicated as a set.
- Warren
These are only initial conditions, so do what you think is needed to do in order to develop a useful system.
But please do that without ignoring any of the initial conditions.
kaiser soze
Aug12-04, 04:50 PM
learn some math for starters....
Hi Kaizer soze,
We are now in a theory development forum, so please read the first post of this thread and try to develop your own system.
kaiser soze
Aug12-04, 04:57 PM
don't you see that noone here is interested in that?
ex-xian
Aug12-04, 05:01 PM
But I learned very well the most fundamental concepts in their most fundamental states.
Really? Would you care to prove this by answering some math question? After all, you offered to do this in your other thread.
Dear Kaizer soze,
Please do not look on other persons, since you have your own experience then try to use it in order to develop the initial conditions, thank you.
Right, Lama doesn't it like it when people criticize his insane ramblings -- he just wants you to help him. :confused:
- Warren
Really? Would you care to prove this by answering some math question? After all, you offered to do this in your other thread.
You are absolutely right, I do not know any of the standard Math, but now we are in a theory development forum, and I offer you to use your own skills in order to develop a mathematical system according to the initial conditions that can be found in the first post.
Can you do that in order to help to this team?
Lama,
You don't appear to any of us to be intellectually equipped to redefine mathematics.
- Warren
Chroot, please forget about me.
The team in the first post needs you help so please use your own skills and try to help them.
The "team" is you, Lama. You're the only one on this mythical team, and trying to ask us for help in developing your ideas is only going to result in continued laughter.
- Warren
ex-xian
Aug12-04, 05:26 PM
You are absolutely right, I do not know any of the standard Math, but now we are in a theory development forum, and I offer you to use your own skills in order to develop a mathematical system according to the initial conditions that can be found in the first post.
Can you do that in order to help to this team?
Since you've finally admitted that you're mathematically ignorant, it stands to reason that your intial conditions are the product of a mathmatical crank. I don't see the point in pursuing this, and I invite and encourage to actually learn something before you try to rewrite it.
The "team" is you, Lama. You're the only one on this mythical team, and trying to ask us for help in developing your ideas is only going to result in continued laughter.
The initial terms in the first post are very simple.
So, can you use your own skills to develop them?
And you dear ex-xian can you use your talent in order to develop these simple initial terms?
We are in a theory development forum.
We are in a theory development forum.
You keep repeating that as if you believe that it permits you to not make any sense and still be taken seriously. It doesn't.
- Warren
You keep repeating that as if you believe that it permits you to not make any sense and still be taken seriously. It doesn't.
Shall we understand that you cannot deal with these simple initial terms in order to help the team?
Actually, Lama, I'm perfectly capable of dealing with this. Like so many of your other threads which went on for pages and only resulted in locks, this thread is off to a great start.
- Warren
ex-xian
Aug12-04, 06:03 PM
Shall we understand that you cannot deal with these simple initial terms in order to help the team?
Perhaps you should understand it to mean that no one takes you or your juvenile games and theories seriously.
Come on people,
Are you just going to stand and look how this team dies, without even trying to help them?
Lama,
Yup. Pretty much the same thing people have done with all the rest of your thousands of posts.
- Warren
Yup. Pretty much the same thing people have done with all the rest of your thousands of posts.
So chroot I think that if we say that you cannot do that, then we say the truth, isn't it?
The stage is yours, nothing but yourself is standing between doing it or not doing it.
I also can't lift up mountains. Pity.
- Warren
Actually, Lama, I'm perfectly capable of dealing with this (post #32).
So what stops you from dealing with these simple initeal terms, in order to develop your system?
I'm not trying to develop a system. I'm trying to learn the one that actually seems to work.
- Warren
I'm not trying to develop a system. I'm trying to learn the one that actually seems to work.
Let us say that you are one of the team, then what are you going to do about that?
What's up with this "team" stuff, Lama? You're just posting the same noise you've been posting forever, but this time spiced it up with some clever story about being killed in three months. I don't even know what your point is anymore.
- Warren
I don't even know what your point is anymore.
Dear chroot, let us say that you are one of the members of the team, and they need your skills (and so yourself) in order to survive after the 3 months, so what are you going to do?
Integral
Aug12-04, 07:24 PM
What's up with this "team" stuff, Lama? You're just posting the same noise you've been posting forever, but this time spiced it up with some clever story about being killed in three months. I don't even know what your point is anymore.
- Warren
Clever? Did I miss something? What is clever about this nonsense?
Clever? Did I miss something? What is clever about this nonsense?
You are right integral nothing is clever here, so I think that if you are one of the members of post #1, you have no problem to use your skills in order to develop a useful system according to the initial conditions, and by doing this you survive after the 3 months.
So, can you delveop it, in order to survive?
Integral
Aug12-04, 08:07 PM
Lama,
As far as I can tell you are a team of 1. Does this mean that you will not longer be posting in 90 days? We will hold a memorial service.
Integral,
There is another beautiful side to 'if, then' that is not connected only to logical propositions, and this side belongs to creativity, imagination and self initiative motivations, internal abilities to find solutions to survive and flourish under unfamiliar situations (for example: If this is the unfamiliar situation, than we think that ... and do ...) , and more good things that are not learned in any academic institution.
What I have learned from your response, until now, is that you have no ability to use this side of 'if, then' even if your own life will be depend on it.
And the amazing (and very sad) fact that we start to discover here is that instead of unique personalities (that can take what is written in post #1 and say exaclty what part of it is problematic in their opinion, and why they think it is problematic) we can see that this inability is some how a common property of persons like ex-xian, kaiser soze, chroot, aridno and you.
In short, when each one of you repeating again and again on the words 'nonsense' , shall we understand that all the sense that you have is nothing but the 'if, then' of the academic institution, and your own abilities are no longer exist?
matt grime
Aug13-04, 04:40 AM
Doron, they have told you what's wrong with post 1. It makes no sense. If something makes absolutely no sense then there is little that anyone can do to explain it. You have put a string of words together in a superficially meaningful way, that doesn't actually mean that it is meaningful.
Hi Matt,
Please refresh srcreen and read again my previous post (#46), thank you.
And then please say exactly what part of post #1 makes no sense and why?
matt grime
Aug13-04, 05:15 AM
Doron, it just makes no sense at all. Some times there is no greater explanation than that. Whatever sense it makes in your head doesn't matter because we read it and it makes no sense, we cannot interpret what you are saying. This is not because we are stupid, or bodyguards of the establishment, or anything like that. It is because you have not written anything that makes sense, simple as that.
Undoubtedly you know what you mean when you say "fullness" but we are left in the dark, fullness of what? Let me help you out here by pointing out that whilst in Hebrew fullness means "everything which exists", that is not a definition used throughout the rest of the world, and it is only because I searhed the OED a few seconds ago that I am now presuming that by "fullness" you are positing the existence of the universal set.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug13-04, 05:31 AM
We are members of a team that have exactly 3 months to live, unless we create a useful pure mathematical system.
For this mission we have no choice but to define these independent concepts:
a) Emptiness (notated by {})
b) Fullness (notated by {__})
This can lead to serious definition problems. :cry:
For example, is the set half full, or is the set half empty?
:wink: :wink: :wink:
For example, is the set half full, or is the set half empty?
It means that we have to think in a way which is not based on 0 XOR 1.
If you a member of the team in post #1, can you do that in order to survive after 3 months?
arildno
Aug13-04, 09:48 AM
For starters, Lama:
"For this mission we have no choice but to define these independent concepts:
a) Emptiness (notated by {})
b) Fullness (notated by {__})
c) A point (notated by {.}}
d) A segment or interval (notated by {._.}
"
Eeh, concepts? Independent ones? (What does independent mean?)
All I see here is some symbols introduced which supposedly have some connection with some words.
There has been no definitions, only the presentation of some symbols.
Tom Mattson
Aug13-04, 09:53 AM
Why don't you guys just let it go?
Make no mistake, when I see something that I regard as crackpottery I usually jump right into the thread. But Lama isn't making any assertions in this thread. Given that, I would think that you guys would not feel obligated to respond. Indeed, I would think that it would be regarded as the perfect opportunity to walk away. After all, what need is there to respond?
There has been no definitions, only the presentation of some symbols.
Exactly, all you have to do in the first stage is to define them in such a way that you will be able to use them as axioms for you system, and as you know, no axiom is depended on the other axioms.
Why don't you guys just let it go?
So, after all Tom you have a personal opinion about my ideas.
Maybe you can give some details about post #1 that clearly show (in details)
what do you think about it, thank you.
arildno
Aug13-04, 10:06 AM
Why don't you guys just let it go?
Make no mistake, when I see something that I regard as crackpottery I usually jump right into the thread. But Lama isn't making any assertions in this thread. Given that, I would think that you guys would not feel obligated to respond. Indeed, I would think that it would be regarded as the perfect opportunity to walk away. After all, what need is there to respond?
Good point. I will take heed on that advice, for my part.
Tom Mattson
Aug13-04, 10:13 AM
So, after all Tom you have a personal opinion about my ideas.
Sorry, I'd rather not. I'm more interested in physics than mathematics anyway.
Sorry, I'd rather not. I'm more interested in physics than mathematics anyway.
Dear Tom you did not understand, I did not ask about your opinion, what I actually say is that in fact you have a negative opinion about my ideas, and you just now used your power as a super mentor of this forum to say to the persons that are posting in this thread, that there is no reason to continue the dialog here because (in your words) "Indeed, I would think that it would be regarded as the perfect opportunity to walk away. After all, what need is there to respond?".
Tom Mattson
Aug13-04, 11:12 AM
Dear Tom you did not understand, I did not ask about your opinion, what I actually say is that in fact you have a negative opinion about my ideas, and you just now used your power as a super mentor
What are you talking about? I didn't use my power as a Super Mentor. All I did was make a post, which is something any member can do.
Consider the following:
They think you're a crank, and they respond out of a sense of duty because they think that you are posting nonsense at best, and falsehoods at worst. But I pointed out that you are not making any assertions in this thread, so there is no need for them to feel that way.
You think that you are on to something special. My comments are worded in such a way as to stop the endless flood of posts that contian no rebuttals, but only constant reminders that they think your ideas are nonsense. I cannot imagine that you want that kind of response anyway, do you?
So I say:
"Indeed, I would think that it would be regarded as the perfect opportunity to walk away. After all, what need is there to respond?".
Are my comments not reasonble for all parties involved?
Look Tom,
I think that the best thing is to let the people here to find their way of expression along this thread, because the main idea in this thread is that they have to find their way in order to invent their own system by using their own skills.
Since it is not an easy task to start from unfamiliar conditions that are not learned in the standard academic system, it is a natural response to say at least in the first stage that these initial conditions are looks as nonsense.
But I think that if people continue to look at post #1 they gradually will discover their ways to develop a useful pure mathematical system out of the initial conditions.
So if you interfere in these crucial moments and say to people not to continue to air their view in this thread, then all you do is to cut the process that maybe leading some person beyond the 'nonsense' first response.
No one has aired any views other than that your original post was nonsense. Tom has not changed that.
- Warren
Hi chroot,
Please look at post #50 and post #52.
As you see, Russell E. Rierson and arildno gave more details which are more then general 'nonsense' response.
Can you please show some part of post #1 that because of it your response is 'nonsense'?
ex-xian
Aug13-04, 03:54 PM
Hi chroot,
Please look at post #50 and post #52.
As you see, Russell E. Rierson and arildno gave more details which are more then general 'nonsense' response.
Can you please show some part of post #1 that because of it your response is 'nonsense'?
Still waiting for an answer to my question.
Locrian
Aug13-04, 03:59 PM
Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!
ex-xian
Aug13-04, 04:03 PM
Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!
Ok! But Why Do You Talk Like This?
Locrian
Aug13-04, 04:13 PM
Because that's what happens when you are being sarcastic and post in all caps.
Tom Mattson
Aug13-04, 07:43 PM
Look Tom,
I think that the best thing is to (snip)
Look Lama,
I think that the best thing is for all the empty chattering to stop. This thread is a ghastly eyesore, and I am not going to watch it go on like this for another page, let alone 3 more months.
Please look at post #50 and post #52.
As you see, Russell E. Rierson and arildno gave more details which are more then general 'nonsense' response.
Post 50 was obviously a joke, and post 52 was obviously a statement that your first post is nonsense.
Post 50 was obviously a joke, and post 52 was obviously a statement that your first post is nonsense.
First, thank you for your patience.
Look Tom, I believe that one of your interests is to save space to what is considered by you as a thread with a meaningful content.
The nature of this thread needs more time to develop a meaningful posts because it gives an opportunity to each participator in it to show how he uses its own abilities to survive an unfamiliar situation, which is basically different from what he have learned in the standard academic system.
Post #50 is definitely not a joke because it shows what happen if you look at these initial conditions only form the standard 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, which standing in the basis of the standard academic system.
Post #52 shows exactly the same problem, which is the inability of ardnilo (in this first stage) to grasp that he:
1) Have to define these initial conditions by himself (by using his own abilities to survive after 3 months).
2) In order to do that, you have no choice but to look at this situation from a new point of view, which is not the standard logical reasoning of 0_XOR_1, which stands in the basis the standard academic system.
Some examples of non-meaningful posts, which really leading us to nowhere can be shown in #63, #47, #16, #18, #20, #23, #25, ... and so on, which show that these persons still did not grasp that they are the heroes of this thread, and they can help themselves only if they start to work according to (1) and (2) .
Tom Mattson
Aug14-04, 12:00 PM
The nature of this thread needs more time to develop a meaningful posts because it gives an opportunity to each participator in it to show how he uses its own abilities to survive an unfamiliar situation, which is basically different from what he have learned in the standard academic system.
Lama, I have no intention of debating this with you. I am informing you that this thread will not be allowed to go on as it has been. All you did was copy and paste part of a post from your last thread to start this one. That last thread went almost 30 pages. This idea of yours has already had enough time to develop into a meaningful discussion, and it hasn't. It hasn't because no one can make any sense of it.
Post #50 is definitely not a joke because it shows what happen if you look at these initial conditions only form the standard 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, which standing in the basis of the standard academic system.
Post #52 shows exactly the same problem, which is the inability of ardnilo (in this first stage) to grasp that he:
1) Have to define these initial conditions by himself (by using his own abilities to survive after 3 months).
2) In order to do that, you have no choice but to look at this situation from a new point of view, which is not the standard logical reasoning of 0_XOR_1, which stands in the basis the standard academic system.
Some examples of non-meaningful posts, which really leading us to nowhere can be shown in #63, #47, #16, #18, #20, #23, #25, ... and so on, which show that these persons still did not grasp that they are the heroes of this thread, and they can help themselves only if they start to work according to (1) and (2) .
Are you being patronizing? Or do you seriously think that no one here understands the game you described? It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they don't want to play it.
My open hearted post:
If we look at Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm we can find parameter L.
L = The "lifetime" of communicating civilizations, or in other worlds, if there is no natural catastrophe in some given planet, then how some civilization survives the power of its technology?
If we look on our civilization, I think that we cannot ignore L and in this case we should ask every day "how we survive the power of our technology?"
My work for the last 20 years is one of many possible ways to answer this every day question.
Though my research I have found that if some civilization has no balance between its morality level and its technological level, then there is a very high probability that its L= some n , or in other words it is no longer exists.
Now, let us look at our L and let us ask ourselves: "Do we do all what we have to do to avoid some n?"
Most of the power of our technology is based on the Language of Mathematics and its reasoning, where the current reasoning is generally based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning, and there is nothing in this reasoning which researches the most important question which is: "How do we use this powerful Language on order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Language of Mathematics has nothing to do with these kinds of questions", then in my opinion we quickly bring ourselves to find the exact n of our L.
In my opinion, in order to avoid the final n of our L, we have no choice but to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level within the framework of what is called the Language of Mathematics.
Furthermore, we should not leave this question to be answered beyond the framework of our scientific methods, because no other framework, accept our scientific method can really determinate the destiny of our L.
As I see it, the internet is The place to participate other people in such thoughts.
Yes, the reasons that no one wants to play your game here, or anywhere else on the internet, are:
1) Morality and mathematics are not related.
2) Mainstream mathematics is not going to destroy the world.
3) Your nonsensical "system" is not going to prevent the destruction of the world.
4) If you've been working on this idea of yours for 20 years and this is all you have to show for it, you're obviously not worth listening to.
- Warren
Chroot,
I believe that you know the life story of The great Mathematician Evariste Galois.
Has we know, his Mathematical genius did not save him from his poor end.
If in his time there was a deep connection between morality and reasoning within the framework of the language of Mathematics, then I believe that there was a reasonable chance that this particular evening of Evariste Galois was not the last evening of his life.
As I wrote in my previous post, our all civilization is in its Galois last evening, because there is no deep connection between our morality and our technological skills.
Forget about me and my work and ask yourself: "As a member of the scientific community, what is my contribution to develop a reasonable method that can find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
And if you want a motivation to ask yourself this question, then think that the answer has to be given to your children and to your grandchildren.
You think if Galois were working on a mathematical system based on emptiness "{}" and fullness "{__}" he would not have been a political activist, threatened the King, or participated in the duel that took his life? :rofl:
- Warren
You think if Galois were working on a mathematical system based on emptiness "{}" and fullness "{__}" he would not have been a political activist, threatened the King, or participated in the duel that took his life?
When you think about the language of Mathematics from an included-middle reasoning it leads you to include your own cognition as one of the fundamental elements of your Mathematical research, and this is the gateway to develop a deep connection between your internal properties as a human being and the technical methods that you develop.
But you ignored the main point of my previous post, which is your answer to your children and your grandchildren.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug14-04, 04:11 PM
"As a member of the scientific community, what is my contribution to develop a reasonable method that can find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
Ethics is related to game theory:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
QUOTE:
Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among rational players produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those players, none of which might have been intended by any of them.
Ethics is related to game theory:
But what is the deep common motivation that is the basis of any stable agreement between the parts?
Game theory only reduces these things to quantitative models, that tel us nothing about the quality of these deep connections.
But you ignored the main point of my previous post
And you seem to have ignored my question entirely.
- Warren
Actually, Lama, I'm perfectly capable of dealing with this. Like so many of your other threads which went on for pages and only resulted in locks, this thread is off to a great start.
- WarrenIsn't it curious that chroot brought this to the attention of PF readers, but not Lama?
Lama, did you start lots of other threads here in PF? Did those threads result in them being locked? Were those threads different from this, in any significant way?
Were those threads different from this, in any significant way?
In this thread the stage is yours, to show how you can use your own ability in order to solve an unfamiliar situation and help your team and yourself to survive after the 3 months.
Until this moment, the people in this threat unfortunately clearly showed that they have no ability to think beyond the limitations of the standard academic system, which is based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning.
Furthermore, Russell E. Rierson gave game theory as an example of how Mathematics can be a gateway that help us to survive conflicts by analyze the reasoning that stand behind them and he quoted Stanford university website, where we can find this sentence:
"Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among rational players..."
In my previous post I said that this theory cannot fully answer to this question if:
1) It does nothing to show what it means by using the words 'rational player', because it takes 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning as the one and only one meaning for the words 'rational player'.
2) There is one and only one real meaning to the word 'strategic', which is: "How we avoid n of L in Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm?" (as clearly explained in post #70 http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285437&postcount=70)
I suggest anyone of you to open, for example, Google and search for:
"Drake's equation" + "game theory"
And you will see by yourself the "strategic big efforts" of the human race to give its solution to L of Drake's equation.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug15-04, 01:53 AM
But what is the deep common motivation that is the basis of any stable agreement between the parts?
Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion. What we seek[per qualia] are actually just vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of feeble human intellects, desperately searching for a way to justify our existence.
Here is a quote of Richard Feynman:
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. "
Feynman appears to be expressing a mathematical paradox, basically in the form of a statement:
We can only be certain that we are not-certain. :eek: :eek: :eek:
X iff not-X
:cry: :cry: :cry:
So we employ variables and meta-variables of arbitrary logical order, owing to the fact, that semantics MUST be beholden to syntax.
Suppose a person called X, stands up and says, "This assertion is false."
Let S denote the statement uttered; let p be the proposition the person makes by uttering S. Then the utterance of the phrase "This assertion" refers to the claim p. It follows that, in uttering the words "This assertion is false," X is making the claim "p is false". Thus , p and "p is false" are one and the same:
p = [p is false]
By making the claim, X is implicitly referring to the context in which the claim is stated. Let c symbolically represent the context for which the sentence refers.
X's uttering of the words "This assertion" refers to the context, c, which entails p.
[c entails p]
That is to say, p must be the same as [c entails p] due to the fact that X is referring to both p and [c entails p] via the utterance of the phrase "This assertion."
If X's assertion is true then [c entails p] is true
p = [p is false]
[c entails p is false] is true
This creates a contradiction, ergo X's claim that [p is false] is false.
[c entails p is false] is false
This appears to be the same contradictory state of affairs as in the previous cases of the Liars Paradox.
Conclusion?:
c cannot be the appropriate context.
Conclusion?:
c cannot be the appropriate context.
But Dear Russell E. Rierson all you did is to use again 0_XOR_1 reasoning.
My suggestion to avoid n of L of Drake's equation, is based on an included-middle reasoning, which is:
The Art of interactions between independent opposites in non-destructive ways.
Locrian
Aug15-04, 09:44 AM
In short, I am not going to talk about my work in this thread.
will anyone offer me odds on that?
How much did you win?
Hi Locrian,
Do you understand the goal of this thread?
Locrian
Aug15-04, 10:12 AM
Yes.
To annoy the moderators.
To annoy the moderators
Maybe if you read http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=283514&postcount=1 you will change your mind.
My my, your first post just keeps getting more and more convoluted and ridiculous...
- Warren
My my, your first post just keeps getting more and more convoluted and ridiculous...
Chroot, please read also post #79 and please explain us in details, that we all learn from your wisdom, why, for example, post #79 is ridiculous?
Post #79 is ridiculous because in it you're trying to assert that game theory has something to do with morality, and your notion that the end of human civilization is going to be caused by mathematics -- all of which are ridiculous statements.
We all know you're not capable of recognizing your own illucidity, but you surely do seem able to recognize that everyone else that ever participates in your threads is against you. Why do you suppose this is?
- Warren
Chroot,
I say exactly the opposite, which is:
Because game theory has no connection to morality, it cannot be the gateway between our morality level and our technological skills.
Furthermore, and the and of this post I ask people to find out how many researches they can find, which are related to strategic solutions to avoid n of L?
And if you will search you will not find even a one series scientific research that try to find some solution to the most important question, which is directly connected to our own survival.
So if game theory has no answer to this most important question, then please show again your wisdom and explain us, how we are going to survive the power of our technology, without some logical reasoning that can be a gateway between our morality level and out technological skills?
But before you answer to this question, you have to understand that this blind power is based on the logical reasoning (0_XOR_1) of the standard Language of Mathematics, and because of this dichotomy between this logic and our morality, we find ourselves very very close to determine n of L in Drake's equation.
I wish you'd stop calling "finite civilization lifetime" the "n of L," since you seem to have made up "n." Once again, you seem to have an affinity for redefining terms without really explaining them.
Mankind is going to avoid blowing itself up by making reasonable political choices, like not dropping nuclear bombs, and reasonable environmental choices, like not polluting all the water.
None of this has anything to do with mathematics. At your core, you seem to believe that mathematics is evil, and will somehow cause the destruction of the world. You also seem to believe that your weak-minded alternative is somehow not evil, and won't cause the destruction of the world.
At this point, you have failed to demonstrate why existing mathematics will destroy the world. You have also failed to demonstrate why your weak-minded alternative won't destroy the world. I doubt any such demonstrations will be forth-coming. I doubt that you have any reason to believe the things you believe, and that you are simply mentally ill.
- Warren
In this thread the stage is yours, to show how you can use your own ability in order to solve an unfamiliar situation and help your team and yourself to survive after the 3 months.Who is in my team (apart from myself)?
Why do I not know who is in my team?
Why do you think that if I don't solve your puzzle I will die in less than 3 months?
What has morality got to do with this thread?
When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?
Chroot,
The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.
Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?
No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.
fbsthreads
Aug15-04, 06:15 PM
if n is going to end L, then what system of mathematics was used to calculate that finite number, and can't we use that mathematical system if it works.
And if the current system doesn't work then we aren't going to die in three months and we don't need to invent a new system.
YAY, we win either way, the teams okay, we've overcome the problem using homegrown logic.
When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?
Nereid, your question is for me like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer noone.
Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the humam race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the bilnd forces of nature .
So, we have knowledge of the atom which enables us to build nuclear weapons, and hence destroy ourselves. We have arrived at this knowledge by the last several hundred years of scientific inquiry. We're all in agreement so far.
Now, this knowledge was not "made" by the scientific community, it was discovered by them. You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons -- presumably this means that this alternative scientific process would not have led us to discover things about atoms.
So you seem to be advocating the crippling of science by using an alternative scientific method which would not allow us to discover things that could be used to build weapons. You seem to be missing the fundamental point that information cannot be evil. Scientists can learn how atoms work. With than knowledge, politicians can order the construction of nuclear bombs, threatening humanity -- or a doctor can order the construction of radiotherapy machines, allowing many people to survive cancer. Information is not inherently evil or good -- it is the application of that information that can be evil or good.
You seem to be advocating a system in which we stick our heads in the sand and discover nothing, because any knowledge could potentially be used to hasten our demise. Let's just make one thing clear here: you're not advocating some new mathematical formalism at all. You are trying to proselytize your anti-scientific world-view, couching your rhetoric inside some ill-formed pseuo-math to hide its true nature.
- Warren
Hi fbsthreads,
The idea is to develop such logical reasoning that will change the way we are thinkin' about Math and science, and will lead us to find reasonable methods which always avoid n of L.
You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons.
Nothing, but our morality level, can prevent from us to build an atomic weapon.
What I am suggesting will not prevent from us to discover any new powerful thing.
The deep change that I am talking about is to use this powerful language of mathematics in such a way that any new student who learn it will use a built in methods that develop both his morality level and his technical skills in such a way that will give him the strategic insight not to use his power to develop destructive things from one hand , and to take care about life on the other hand.
Can you provide even a simple example of how a student is supposed to develop his morality while learning his multiplication tables?
You seem to be very keen on this idea, but you do not seem capable of providing even a basic example of how it might actually work.
- Warren
fbsthreads
Aug15-04, 06:47 PM
math doesn't lead to n of L.
the proof of that is that we still have L and have never experienced an utter n.
although i don't deny that n is possible, it will not be caused by logic, maths or science, it will be caused by an abuse of these things that maths does not govern.
on a different note, did you ever think that maths might be able to stop n as well as cause it?
p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.
p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.
Look how you separate so easily between what is called science methods and morality.
And this is exactly what the academic system sells to young students and they buy it.
So let me say it again, because of this artificial separation between our morality and out scientific methods that are learned by the academic system for the last 200 years, our world got all its mass destructive weapon.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug15-04, 07:11 PM
Look how you separate so easily between what is called science methods and morality.
And this is exactly what the academic system sells to young students and they buy it.
So let me say it again, because of this artificial separation between our morality and out scientific methods that are learned by the academic system for the last 200 years, our world got all its mass destructive weapon.
Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is :eek: immoral :eek:
Society evolves via the majority shareholders of opinion, it seems. We
may incorrectly assume that all people are almost exclusively
motivated by their own material self-interest. Yet the experiential
juxtaposition of objective and subjective realities, called the status
quo "of the people, for the people, and by the people" systematically
refutes the self-interest hypothesis to a large degree. It appears
that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and
reciprocity.
Let there be a decision process in which one of two alternatives must
be chosen.
Group members may differ in their valuations of the alternatives, yet
must prefer some alternative to disagreement[game theoretically
speaking]. The process will be distinguished by three features:
private information regarding valuations, varying intensities in the
preference for one out-come over the other, and the option to declare
neutrality in order to avoid disagreement.
Variants on a "tyranny of the majority", will always be an equilibrium
in which the majority is all the more aggressive in pushing its
alternative, thus using the metaphorical "strong arm" to enforce their
will, via both numbers and voice. The metaphorical "might makes right"
scenario. Likewise, under very general conditions, an aggressive
minority equilibrium inevitably makes its appearance, provided that
the group is large enough. This equilibrium displays a "tyranny of the
minority": Yes, it is always true that the increased aggression of the
minority more than compensates for its smaller number, leading to the
minority outcome being implemented with larger probability than the
majority alternative.
ex-xian
Aug15-04, 07:16 PM
Because that's what happens when you are being sarcastic and post in all caps.
Oh, I know. I was just being sarcastic.
The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.
Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?
No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys" and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.You don't need modern day toys like H-bombs to destroy 'ourselves'; the Mongols a thousand years ago did a pretty thorough job of destroying an alarmingly large number of 'us' with just swords. Too, some very nasty poisons have been known for thousands of years, along with cheap and effective ways of making and distributing them. The early white settlers in Australia used poisoned 'gifts' to clear the land of the native aborigines. And the list goes on.
So by extension, any use of science and technology (irrespective of how ill-formed the understanding of it is) is immoral? Or is it the intention?
Zorodius
Aug15-04, 07:23 PM
Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?
No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.
You'll be disappointed to realize that large-scale loss of human life to war predates the invention of modern weaponry.
Chroot,
The logical reasoning that I am talking about it is the included-middle reasoning, which is based on our abilities to develop deep interactions between abstract or non-abstract elements in such ways that they will not destroy each other during their interactions.
This kind of reasoning, when combined with our own cognition abilities to develop Math as part of the research itself, can lead us to develop a new kind of language of Mathematics which is deeply connected to our morality level.
And as I wrote to Nereid, Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the human race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the blind forces of nature.
Nereid, your question is for me like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer noone.
Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the humam race can have, that gives it its ability to survive bilnd forces of nature .That's nice. How does morality save 'the humam race' from the next KT asteroid? (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm assuming that you would agree that the KT asteroid is a very good example of 'bilnd forces of nature' - do you?
BTW, how about answers to my other questions?
Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is immoral
How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.
On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.
Nothing, but our morality level, can prevent from us to build an atomic weapon.
What I am suggesting will not prevent from us to discover any new powerful thing.
The deep change that I am talking about is to use this powerful language of mathematics in such a way that any new student who learn it will use a built in methods that develop both his morality level and his technical skills in such a way that will give him the strategic insight not to use his power to develop destructive things from one hand , and to take care about life on the other hand.Do you know how the Nobel prize came into being? If you don't, please spend some time researching it.
A sharp knife is a very good tool for slaughtering chickens and pigs; efficient slaughter helps keep the cost of animal protein down. A sharp knife is also a very good weapon for killing people.
Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite (which has a large number of positive applications to increasing the health and comfort of humans) or sharp knives?
p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.In principle I agree with this; in practice, I think readers of the relevant philosophy sections would be somewhat less than happy to have this dropped in their laps.
:wink:
That's nice. How does morality save 'the human race' from the next KT asteroid?
Our morality first will save us from the blind forces which existing within us, and can be seen from time to time during our wars.
And the next global war will be our last war.
So this is the time to take the technologies which we developed during the wars between us, and real put our efforts in order to develop technologies that will save our planet from KT asteroid.
In short, the days of our wars between us must be changed by our morality level, and develop our technology in order to protect ourselves from the blind forces of nature.
How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.
On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.The applications to which new scientific knowledge can be put are largely unknown (and to some extent unknowable) at the time of their discovery, how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed?
In the US, in September 2001, several thousand people died when commercial airliners were deliberately flown into two large commercial buildings in New York. A great many of the deaths were the result of a combination of causes, including building design, building construction, building maintenance; lots of kerosene, and so on. No engineer involved in the design of the buildings or the aircraft had intended their creations to be used to kill thousands of people (indeed, the building designers had considered the possibility of a commercial airliner crashing into their building), yet their creations were used for just such a purpose.
Shouldn't your new morality also extend to users?
Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite
Again, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?
I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.
Besides, the philosophy forum has been suggested to Lama before, and he preferred TD.
I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.
And why do you think that has anything to do with mathematics?
how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed
Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.
This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.
Chroot,
The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.
Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?
No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.AndAgain, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?
I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.And Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.
This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.Lama, you seem to be inconsistent here, but perhaps it's just my understanding.
The ability of Homo sap. to slaughter large numbers of humans and other large animals has been around for at least 30,000 years - clubs and fire will do the trick, no need even for stone spears and knives. Although somewhat controversial, the disappearance of the megafauna in both Australia and the Americas may be laid at the feet of the early human invaders.
Your thesis seems to be, on the one hand, that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the other that new technologies may be applied to making better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the one foot, new tools may be used for mass killing (so we need a new morality) ... but that the most critical place a new morality is needed is wrt new scientific discoveries (through the automatic inclusion of this fairy dust into the scientific method itself). But we all know that you don't need to be a scientist to give the order to launch 10,000 ICBMs (or to order your army armed with swords to slaughter every man, woman and child in the city), so how would a different way of doing science stop thoughts of mass murder from forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?
Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.
Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.
I whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front. Since this hasn't been fruitful, and Lama continues to post virtually the same things as he always has, I assumed there must be some ulterior motive. I'm very interested, as you seem to be, to see what his motives really are in posting his mathematical theories here for years on end. Obviously, the central reason is some sort of anti-scientific moral issue for him, and he sees mathematics as a vehicle. Why? I don't know.
- Warren
Russell E. Rierson
Aug16-04, 01:24 AM
How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.
On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.
You are talking about the nature of the mind, not physics :eek:
According to Freud, the id is the seat of our aggressive instincts.
The ego mediates between aggressive instincts of the id and demands of the superego; it uses defense mechanisms to ward off sub-conscious anxiety.
The superego represents conscience and the demands of society; it follows a set of learned and "internalized" moral codes.
A person does not change their basic nature :smile: :devil: via the acquisition of more knowledge...
Or can they?
that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means
When I am talking about scientific discoveries, I am not talking only about new physical quantified phenomena and technological methods to use it.
I am also talking about the education process that will be an inherent part of the scientific framework, which takes in account the power of the language itself on the human mind and discover by using this power the most intimate and internal levels of the power of constructive life within each one of us.
This is the supreme responsibility of the scientific method, to use its power to support and save life phenomena, by using the best methods that can be found and developed by us.
Again, there is no Math without Mathematicians, there is no science without scientists, and there is no life without leaving creatures, simple as that.
We have no choice but to do the best we can in order to save and support life on this planet, because in this case, after we got the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot speak anymore on arrows or knives, because arrows or knives or not going to destroy most or all of us not today and not tomorrow.
We are no longer waking on a sidewalk but on a tight rope high above ground, and we have to use our best methods to not falling from this rope.
And more power means higher and thinner rope that we have to deal with, if we want to survive the blind power of our discoveries.
In short any powerful method always have its destructive and constructive sides, and we have no choices but to do the best we can in order to use it with open eyes, and nobody but us is responsible for this.
whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front.
You cause yourself not to understand my work by looking on the Language of Mathematics only from the point of view of its powerful technical abilities which are based on the 0_XOR_1 reasoning, and this reasoning does the best it can to clearly and sharply separate its methods from any philosophical, moral or ethical researches.
Furthermore, the mathematicians congenital abilities are not taken as natural parts of 0_XOR_1 reasoning.
And the reason is very simple, 0_XOR_1 is an artificial reasoning that has nothing to do with real abstract or non-abstract HIGHLY complex systems.
On the contrary the included-middle reasoning is the right logical reasoning that can support both our technological and non-technological abstract or non-abstract aspects of life.
And why is that?
Because it is based on the most problematic situation that can exist, which is: To find how opposites interact at least without destroying each other and at most to develop higher and deeper levels of interactions between HIGHLY complex phenomena.
Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others...
Don't you have your own original voice, why do you need a group of people around you in order to air your view?
A person does not change their basic nature via the acquisition of more knowledge...
Or can they?
If we are using ! sign right from the beginning about this subject, then we are with our own hands fixed our destiny about this subject.
So I think that your "or can they?" question is the right answer to any defeatist attitude about this subject.
I call to each one of us first of all to find out what our civilization seriously do on order to avoid n of L of Drake's equation.
And each one of us have to understand that this is the most important question of our time, that can be answerd only by us.
CrankFan
Aug16-04, 04:48 AM
THANKS FOR USING BIG, COLORFUL FONTS IT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND. I WISH TOM APOSTOL WROTE LIKE THAT TOO.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug16-04, 04:53 AM
I call to each one of us first of all to find out what our civilization seriously do on order to avoid n of L of Drake's equation.
And each one of us have to understand that this is the most important question of our time, that can be answerd only by us.
The Drake equation:
http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/drake.html
If the universe is "full" of intelligent life and we are not flooded
with the radio signals of advanced civilizations, what then, could be
the universal method of communication?
Pseudo telepathy?
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0211011
Quote:
Imagine that Alice and Bob, unable to communicate, are both given a
16-bit string such that the strings are either equal, or they differ
in exactly 8 positions. Both parties are then supposed to output a
4-bit string in such a way that these short strings are equal if and
only if the original longer strings given to them were equal as well.
It is known that this task can be fulfilled without failure and
without communication if Alice and Bob share 4 maximally entangled
quantum bits. We show that, on the other hand, they CANNOT win the
same game with certainty if they only share classical bits, even if it
is an unlimited number. This means that for fulfilling this particular
distributed task, quantum entanglement can completely replace
communication. This phenomenon has been called pseudo-telepathy. The
results of this paper complete the analysis of the first proposed game
of this type between two players.
Carnkfun and Russell E. Rierson,
Please give your details remarks on post #119 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286575&postcount=119) , #120
Russell E. Rierson
Aug16-04, 05:13 AM
I call to each one of us first of all to find out what our civilization seriously do on order to avoid n of L of Drake's equation.
And each one of us have to understand that this is the most important question of our time, that can be answerd only by us.
This appears to be an emotional plea to rally the troops :wink:
Are you searching for a theory with an all encompassing range of validity? One that gives Einstein's relativity, and the standard model, as low energy limits? One that makes new predictions?
My particular hobby is "jargon salad" I cannot really help you with a true theory :eek:
:wink: :wink: :wink:
This appears to be an emotional plea ...
Is it only an emotional plea to ask people to find out (by using the internet, for example) if they can find any real and organized activity of our civilization which seek for solutions in order to avoid its end?
If you cannot find such an activity in our civilization, and especially within our scientific community, I think all of us in a deep trouble.
Don't you think so?
CrankFan
Aug16-04, 05:43 AM
Carnkfun and Russell E. Rierson,
Please give your details remarks on post #119 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286575&postcount=119) , #120
My detailed response to #120:
You seem to think that somehow the rules of classical mathematical reasoning will bring about the downfall of humanity, which is laughable. This fear of yours is completely unfounded and appears to be an invention of your mind in which you indulge in "knowing" that you're part of a great and meaningful destiny to save mankind.
By the way, there are mathematical logics which do not have the law of the excluded middle, like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic
EDIT: Eh, I should probably at least note that I've ignored your statements about scientific method (because I don't want to conflate the concepts of mathematical reasoning and scientific method).
Russell E. Rierson
Aug16-04, 05:48 AM
Is it only an emotional plea to ask people to find out (by using the internet, for example) if they can find any real and organized activity of our civilization which seek for solutions in order to avoid its end?
If you cannot find such an activity in our civilization, and especially within our scientific community, I think all of us in a deep trouble.
Don't you think so?
99% ? of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. What makes us[humans] any better than ...them?
There are many different types of math and logic and the logic that you have presented is already in use it seems. How can your ideas be quantified?
99% ? of all species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. What makes us[humans] any better than ...them?
Any how many of them used their own technology in order to extinct themselves?
Don't you understand that the power that gives you your ability to know this knowledge is the power that maybe can save you from this destiny?
and the logic that you have presented is already in use ...
I'll be more than glad if you show me where we can find the logic that I have represented.
In that case I'll find the community of people that can understand my work.
How can your ideas be quantified?
In my system i have two kinds of cardinals, which one of them is related to information structure and not to quantitative cardinality.
But as I said, in this thread I am not going to talk about my work.
You are the one who have to find it by using the initial conditions of post #1.
@Lama,
I've just spent 15 minutes reading this utter BS.
For starters, Morality has as much to do with maths as my left toe has to do with nuclear fission.
You keep rambeling on like a broken record about how this new system of maths is going to make sure we have a better morality.
Ok morality doesn't get better, its there.
You probably mean ethics about what we do and don't do with the things humanity invents.
Fact is, maths again has jack **** to do with the decision of putting invetions to use, its political.
Political decisions are purely egocentric, only focused on getting a better end result for the country deploying said invention.
Now on to my opinion about you, crackpot is a severe understatement.
Your a straight on mental patient.
You're completely unable to listen to reasoning from others, time and time again you flee in the same senseless fairytales.
Nowhere in this tread have you answered a single question in a normal (that means not evasive) way.
You're pissing everyone off, yet are to ignorant to see it.
Last time Morality (that is where you actualy mean ethics) has jack **** to do with maths, physics or any form of non social sience.
And now for the closure, this BS tread of you wasted a perfect 20 minutes out of my break.
I cherished the hope something meaningfull came from this but you're beyond help.
Realy Lama, i pity you and your closed mind.
Just unable to listen.....
Just unable to listen.....
Listen to what?
I did not see even one meaningful reference in your post, which is related to any of my posts in this thread.
Also I did not see an example of your ability to solve post #1 situation.
Morality has as much to do with maths as my left toe has to do with nuclear fission
And by this response you clearly show that you did not understand a single word of what I wrote, so blame only yourself (and by the way, when I write morality I mean exactly to morality).
Nowhere in this tread have you answered a single question in a normal (that means not evasive) way
Please give a detailed example.
JasonRox
Aug16-04, 07:16 AM
I stopped reading and picked on Chroot's post about the fact it is the people's choice to use the information science has gathered for good or evil.
This is entirely true, and for anyone to be anti-science should leave. There is no point in arguing with those who refuse to learn the history of science, and it's impact.
Again, you talk about Theory Development when you haven't developed anything for yourself.
If this is such great work or potentially great work, keep your trap shut, figure it out on your own or with people you trust, and reveal it to the WORLD!
Note: I highly doubt any past scientist/physicist would discuss their theory in open discussion like this. You really think Newton would post his work on here? You really think Einstein would post his rigorous math details and ask, is it good? Do you really think Andrew Wiles would post the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, and say "I think I got IT!"?
Again, you talk about Theory Development when you haven't developed anything for yourself.
Dear JasonRox,
If you want to look at my work then please open http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html
You seem to think that somehow the rules of classical mathematical reasoning will bring about the downfall of humanity, which is laughable.
To understand better my point of view please look at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=283514&postcount=1
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=284289&postcount=46
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285864&postcount=79
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286290&postcount=89
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286320&postcount=92
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286324&postcount=94
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286342&postcount=97
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286349&postcount=100
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286367&postcount=105
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286376&postcount=107
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286383&postcount=110
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286385&postcount=112
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286393&postcount=115
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286575&postcount=119
Locrian
Aug16-04, 08:34 AM
When you have to use yourself as a reference to explain an idea, you have truly and completely failed.
From the start of this thread I've been puzzled by Lama's use of the Drake equation. That it is a marketing trick - nice catchy concept to pull the masses interested in SETI in - is clear, but what role does it play in Lama's program?
Here's my take: since we know of life only on Earth, the status of the Drake equation - and even most of astrobiology - is fairly clear: it's largely speculation (this will begin to change once there's a definitive finding of past or present life on Mars on in the Europan oceans; lack of such findings will delay the transition from speculation to science, but only by a decade or two). To thus use it as a supporting part of one's thesis is a pretty extreme stretch; fortunately for Lama, whether his thesis contains this Drake idea or not seems pretty irrelevant - the case can be argued without reference to technologically advanced life elsewhere in the universe.
Two more flaws Lama - with the possibility that some kind of mathematically-based morality can be built into the scientific method, thus averting any possibility of Homo sap. self-destructing:
1) human induced climate change and a destruction of ecosystems may render the Earth uninhabitable, for Homo sap. While there impact of Homo sap. on climate is still somewhat controversial, there's no question that the potential is there. Destruction of ecosystems is unambiguous; whether human activities could continue to change ecosystems sufficiently to result in a dramatic reduction in the sustainability of current Homo sap. lifestyles is an open question. However, it seems to me that unless an awful lot more science is done, such a bleak fate may befall us ... simply from continued use of fossil fuels and population growth. So, today's science to the rescue, rather than the cause of the downfall.
2) mass extinctions on planet Earth seem to have occurred as a result of asteroid (or comet) impacts. Using today's science we can say with ~95% confidence that we face no global extinction threat in the next 10 years. If we continue to invest in astronomical facilities dedicated to finding PHAs and comets, we may - in the next two decades - be able to reduce this to ~99% confidence for a century, for PHAs (new comets would still be an unknown threat). However, right now, we'd need ~50 years of warning from a PHA threat to be able to take action to be sure of averting the threat, so if we discovered one that was going to hit the Earth in 10 years' time, we couldn't do anything about it. The relevant probabilities can be estimated; unless your program could be shown to produce a huge change in less than 20 years, a prudent approach to dealing with the asteroid and comet threats would be to continue doing what we are now (or even ramp it up a notch).
That it is a marketing trick - nice catchy concept to pull the masses interested in SETI in - is clear, but what role does it play in Lama's program?
The beautiful things in ideas, is that you can understand them beyond their original framework.
In this case we have not to be very clever in order to understand that our civilization is in a very crucial moment of its existence, and we can show it in many other ways.
I chose Dreake's equation as a tool that can help us to look on ourselves from a larger perspective.
Simple as that.
CrankFan
Aug16-04, 09:09 AM
To understand better my point of view please look at:
[snip links to old crap]
What makes you so sure I haven't seen most of that stuff earlier?
Here's an excerpt from the first link:
THE GAME FOR OUR LIFE
Let us say that we are members of a team that have exactly 3 months to live, unless we create a useful pure mathematical system.
For this mission we have no choice but to define these independent concepts:
1) Emptiness (notated by {})
2) Fullness (notated by {__})
3) A point (notated by {.}}
4) A segment or interval (notated by {._.}
I've seen this many times before, you don't need to repeatedly post the same old crap. We've seen it 100 times now, if you link it 100 more times it will still be crap. Do you understand that?
You don't need you to keep reposting the same old crap, you need to start realizing that when someone points out a flaw in your crap, responding by reposting a link to older crap doesn't fix it.
For example, long ago Matt pointed out that if Lama-reals are countable then they can't be substituted for The reals. You never addressed this point to anyone's satisfaction. There are many other points that you failed to address but I lack the motivation to go back and find them all and point them out here.
I'm at least curious about your {}, {.}, {_}, {._.} thingies.
In your system, what is a natural number?
In your system, what is a rational number?
In your system what is a real number?
Do you have a means of expressing \pi or \sqrt{2} in your system? presumably these are objects in your theory. How do you get to defining what a real number is and then proving that it exists, starting from: {}, {.}, {_}, {._.} ? Explain that.
I don't want you to "answer" these questions by posting links to more crap, I want you to give a straight answer. After all, your theory is superior to anything seen to date and you are a master of clear thought so this should be no problem for you.
lifestyles is an open question...
And we have to do the best we can in order to keep it open, because if they are closed it means that we can smell the end.
unless your program could be shown to produce a huge change in less than 20 years
I believe that you know what are parallel processes.
Instead of seating and doing nothing we can try our best, if we think that there is a reasonable chance that some method can improve our chances to survive.
As Richard Dawkins once said: "A fly with 5% wings can escape faster then a fly with 0% wings."
Explain that.
You are a strange fallow CrankFan.
Form one hand you cannot understand what is included-middle reasoning,
and on the other hand you want me to explain my system in terms of your reasoning.
So, my straight answer is:
From your reasoning point of view you will not see any difference between your system and my system.
If you want to understand my number system you simply have no choice but to see my system from an included-middle point of view, that until this very moment you clearly show that you cannot close your standard cassette in your head and replace it by an included-middle point of view.
For example:
You show {},{.},{._.},{__} 100 times (I am using your own words) and you have no ability of how to start and make Math out of them.
As for your question about pi and sqrt(2),N,Z,Q,R,C yes I have all of them in my system and much more.
By the way Matt Grime is in your possition, therefore he cannot say any meaningful thing about my system.
There are only two persons in this forum that can understand parts of my system and their names are: Moshek and Muddler.
If you really want to understand my work, then you have no choice but to open my website and read the paper of my axioms http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/My-first-axioms.pdf and then if you really want to understand my system, all you have to do is to start and ask your questions according what you have found in this paper.
If you do not want to take my advice (which is ok with me) than sand your complains only to yourself.
By the way none of my papers are what you call "old crap" because all the time I edit them and add more information for the potential reader.
In this case we have not to be very clever in order to understand that our civilization is in a very crucial moment of its existence, and we can show it in many other ways.
I chose Dreake's equation as a tool that can help us to look on ourselves from a larger perspective.
Simple as that.Thanks. So how else can you show 'that our civilization is in a very crucial moment of its existence'?
You said earlier that the next war would be the last war (or something like that); last time I looked there were a good half-dozen wars going on in different parts of the world already. Perhaps you mean a war which involves superpowers and the exchange of nuclear weapons? If so, then I suggest that history since WW II can viewed optimistically - while there was great misery and suffering created by superpower competition (through proxy wars alone), the US and USSR never really came close to a real war (and took increasingly more detailed measures to head any such off).
Why then do you feel today is any more crucial a moment for Homo sap. than (say) 50 years ago? or 50 years from now?
And we have to do the best we can in order to keep it open, because if they are closed it means that we can smell the end.a) we would only know it were closed by doing a great deal more science; b) it likely will be closed unless scientific discoveries keep rolling in; c) you haven't addressed the core question I asked - how does incorporating a new morality into science ensure that all future detrimental effects of Homo sapiens' continued modification of the climate and ecosystems of the Earth can be forseen?
fbsthreads
Aug16-04, 12:33 PM
Moral Maths:
1+1 = 2 (if your good) or 1 (if your bad so that you don’t gain anything)
The internal angles of a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 degrees if you are philanthropic, if you are a bit of a fascist though, they equal 360, so that your weapons backfire on you.
Energy is equal to Matter times the speed of light squared, so long as you swear not to try it out, if you do try it out then Energy and matter are not the same thing because it’s safer.
Locrian
Aug16-04, 01:09 PM
Hah, good stuff.
CrankFan
Aug16-04, 02:08 PM
You are a strange fallow CrankFan.
Form one hand you cannot understand what is included-middle reasoning,
Says who? Where has it been demonstrated that I can't understand what you call included-middle reasoning. As far as I can tell, it's just your awkward way of saying that you don't accept the law of the excluded middle. Which is fine, in the sense that I think I have a clear idea of what that entails.
and on the other hand you want me to explain my system in terms of your reasoning.
Well, actually I asked you to explain something specific about your system, I didn't ask it to be explained in "terms of my reasoning", which presumably means reasoning which makes use of the law of the excluded middle. I don't really care how you prove these things, just that you prove them. I would suspect that your task would be easier if you accepted the law of the excluded middle but I don't mind if your proofs don't make use of that principle.
So, my straight answer is:
From your reasoning point of view you will not see any difference between your system and my system.
That would be surprising, since you've indicated that the set of Lama-reals are countable.
If you want to understand my number system you simply have no choice but to see my system from an included-middle point of view, that until this very moment you clearly show that you cannot close your standard cassette in your head and replace it by an included-middle point of view.
Now it looks like you're stalling.
You've not taken any step towards defining what a natural number is (in your system), let alone rationals and reals. Your constant mutterings about the law of the excluded middle are irrelevant, rejecting it (which I'm prepared to do for the sake of exercise) is only a limitation that you place on yourself.
For example:
You show {},{.},{._.},{__} 100 times (I am using your own words) and you have no ability of how to start and make Math out of them.
Right, I have no idea how to make math out of them!
That is the problem. Does anyone on this forum, know how to make math out of them? does anyone on this planet know how to make math out of them? If it's as simple as you say, show us.
For example. I know that in set theory we would treat {} as 0, and then define the successor of X as the union of the elements of X and X, so we have:
0 {}
1 {,{}}
2 { {}, {{}} }
3 { {}, {{}}, { {}, {{}} } }
And we can go on to extend N to Z, Q, etc. as you're probably well aware, but since we already know how to do this for "the standard framework" how do we do it with your framework?
I'm not asking you to provide the same method but I am asking you to provide a method. This is your theory, it's your job to explain to us precisely how one makes math out of it.
As for your question about pi and sqrt(2),N,Z,Q,R,C yes I have all of them in my system and much more.
Not so fast. You've yet to explain what N, Z, Q, etc. are in your system. I want you to tell me what they are in terms of your "first principles". Stop stalling and get to it.
By the way Matt Grime is in your possition, therefore he cannot say any meaningful thing about my system.
Apparently you can't say any meaningful thing about your system either.
If you really want to understand my work, then you have no choice but to open my website and read the paper of my axioms
I've seen this crap before and seeing it again doesn't deepen my understanding. Instead I just think:
hey look, it's the same old nonsensical crap.
... but I did take a quick look at the document and when I preformed a search for the phrase "scale factor" I noticed that it was used 8 times in the document (including in an axiom) and it's never defined. Near the end of the document you say that 0 and _1 are basic scale factors, but you don't tell us how a basic scale factor is different from a scale factor, or if there are more basic scale factors than just 0 and _1 , etc.
What you really need to do is define terms like scale factor before they are used so that the reader can apply that definition to determine if a particular object in your system is a scale factor or not.
X is a scale factor if and only if ... [conditions]
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/My-first-axioms.pdf
Yes, I've seen that document in several forms. It's devoid of value.
and then if you really want to understand my system, all you have to do is to start and ask your questions according what you have found in this paper.
I can't honestly say that I really want to understand your system, but I could be curious about some aspect of it, that is if I believe that there's a possibility that it might have some substance. However, considering your latest round of responses it's pretty clear to me now that there is no substance whatsoever to it.
Apparently, your revolutionary ideas are a personal fantasy which you play over and over in your head for amusement rather than something which can be objectively described. Which explains why the details of this system are as vaporous as the imaginary friend of a child who can never convince his parents that it's real.
Your theory appears to be nothing more than an imaginary friend.
arildno
Aug16-04, 02:16 PM
Apparently, your revolutionary ideas are a personal fantasy which you play over and over in your head for amusement rather than something which can be objectively described.
I'd rather say he's playing them over and over again in his head for mast***ation purposes, but I really wouldn't care to know.
Did you read Tom Mattson's suggestion, BTW; that we should just ignore this guy? Hopefully, he'll lose interest in posting his silly ideas.
anti_crank
Aug17-04, 02:24 AM
Unfortunately, being pressed for time, the only way I can assist is by offering the following link, with the hope that it will clarify in the minds of contributors the style of logic and general direction of the journey of discovery undertaken here:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/optill/ascendd.jpg
Enough said.
A post for Nereid.
Why then do you feel today is any more crucial a moment for Homo sap. than (say) 50 years ago? or 50 years from now?
1) Mass destruction weapon technology is no longer in the hands of so called developed and rational countries.
Take Iran's case for example.
2) Mass destruction weapon technology is very close to be in the hands of organizations like Al-Kaida.
you haven't addressed the core question I asked - how does incorporating a new morality into science ensure that all future detrimental effects of Homo sapiens' continued modification of the climate and ecosystems of the Earth can be forseen?
1) There are "good" chances that we already missed our last train.
2) Every student in the near future will use methods which combine his own unique personal (moral and technical) contribution to save and develop complexity that is based on simplicity (which is actually the basis of life development).
Through this attitude,(which is based on the art of dialog development between different and unique points of view of other persons) each young mind will learn first of all to cherish the fascinating interaction between its own life and the life phenomena in general.
A post for fbsthreads.
1+1 = 2 (if your good) or 1 (if your bad so that you don’t gain anything)
An example of a moral conclusion based on the Language of Mathematics, can be seen here: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Moral.pdf
In short, since the system I suggest is based first of all on the idea of non-destructive interactions between independent opposites, it can be used as a natural basis for both our moral and technical skills in a one organic framework.
In my opinion only this kind of organic framework is our future guaranty to survive the blind power of our future technologies.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug17-04, 03:11 AM
Here is an interesting article by Andrei Linde about
"The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe". A self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes:
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf
By "included middle" reasoning, do you mean fractal logic?
A post for CrankFan.
Says who? Where has it been demonstrated that I can't understand what you call included-middle reasoning. As far as I can tell, it's just your awkward way of saying that you don't accept the law of the excluded middle. Which is fine, in the sense that I think I have a clear idea of what that entails
If you think that included-middle reasoning is some kind of reasoning where excluded-middle reasoning does not hold (which is the interpretation of constructivism/intuitionism), then you do not understand included-middle reasoning.
Do you have a means of sqrt(2) and pi expressing or in your system?
We are talking about sqrt(2) and pi, because we discovered that they are connected to some very interesting and useful invariant proportions that can be found in the basis of many interesting systems.
Also from a more general point of view they are some two irrational numbers that each one of them has its own unique place on the real-line.
Since the standard form of the entire real-line is a 1-D “shadow” of my number system, those particular numbers are also in my system.
Well, actually I asked you to explain something specific about your system, I didn't ask it to be explained in "terms of my reasoning",
You cannot ask any meaningful question if you don’t understand the included-middle reasoning (see again the first part of my answer to you).
That would be surprising, since you've indicated that the set of Lama-reals are countable.
Since you did not see (yet) R from an included-middle reasoning, it is not surprising at all that you do not understand what I am talking about.
You've not taken any step towards defining what a natural number is
I did much more than that, I defined (by the included-middle reasoning) Organic Natural Numbers, which are based on our most basic congition’s abilities to count.
Peano’s or ZF are only a shadow of them.
Right, I have no idea how to make math out of them!
Then instead of the usual “old crap” response about them, why can’t you simply ask me to explain to you how we can use the included-middle reasoning to make Math out of them?
Not so fast. You've yet to explain what N, Z, Q, etc. are in your system. I want you to tell me what they are in terms of your "first principles". Stop stalling and get to it.
I have no problem to tell you in details about any specific term that you wish to know, but for this please do at least 3 things:
1) When you don’t understand something, simply say that you don’t understand it, instead of the repeating on the unnecessary “nonsense” and “crap” reflex-like responses.
2) I will not answer to any response which is based on commands, for example: “I want you to tell me…”.
3) Please be more focused when you ask some question because -‘what they are in terms of your "first principles"’- is too general.
Please understand that when you ask a focused question, you give me a better chance to know where to start my answer, in order to develop a meaningful dialog between us.
Apparently you can't say any meaningful thing about your system either.
I've seen this crap before and seeing it again doesn't deepen my understanding. Instead I just think:
hey look, it's the same old nonsensical crap.
If you understand and agree with 1) , 2) and 3) of the previous part, then there is a good chance that we can develop a fruitful dialog between us.
...but I could be curious about some aspect of it,...
Well, curiosity is a wonderful basis for a dialog between us, because I am curious too to know what you have to say after you understand the included-middle reasoning.
X is a scale factor if and only if ... [conditions]
This is the tautology of 0_XOR_1 reasoning, but not necessarily the tautology of the included-middle reasoning.
Arithmetic operations, which are based on included-middle reasoning, can be found in:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155
Unfortunately, being pressed for time, the only way I can assist is by offering the following link, with the hope that it will clarify in the minds of contributors the style of logic and general direction of the journey of discovery undertaken here:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/optill/ascendd.jpg
Enough said.
Well dear anti_crank, this is one of the options to not understand my work, when you look at it only from 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning point of view.
Also a person which is "being pressed for time" cannot close by "Enough said".
Here is an interesting article by Andrei Linde about
"The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe". A self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes:
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf
By "included middle" reasoning, do you mean fractal logic?
Dear Russell E. Rierson thank you for the address of this beautiful work by Andrei Linde, I need deep look of it in order to give a meaningful answer to your question.
But from a very general point of view, since a tautology in included-middle reasoning is: "The identity of a thing to itself", I think we can use this tautology as the most basic principle of a fractal.
matt grime
Aug17-04, 05:18 AM
A post for CrankFan.
If you think that included-middle reasoning is some kind of reasoning where excluded-middle reasoning does not hold (which is the interpretation of constructivism/intuitionism), then you do not understand included-middle reasoning.
he didn't say that, he siad he wants you to offer a self contained explanation of the reasoning you have chosen to adopt, whereas all you do is tell us that we can't understand it, and never tell us what it is.
We are talking about sqrt(2) and pi, because we discovered that they are connected to some very interesting and useful invariant proportions that can be found in the basis of many interesting systems.
no, doron, sqrt(2) is an element in the completion of the rationals, which are a localization of the integers which are obtained by adding formal inverses to the naturals. they are a construct of mathematics you reject, hence you cannot use them without explaining what the real numbers are in your system.
Also from a more general point of view they are some two irrational numbers that each one of them has its own unique place on the real-line.
you've not defined rational so you can't say that it's irrational, the "unique place on the number line" is a pointless idea that some one who thinks the real numbers are mathematically defined as the real line would adopt, that is someone who doesn't know anything about mathematics really.
Since the standard form of the entire real-line is a 1-D “shadow” of my number system, those particular numbers are also in my system.
You cannot ask any meaningful question if you don’t understand the included-middle reasoning (see again the first part of my answer to you).
that'd be the thing you never explain just say we don't understand it.
Since you did not see (yet) R from an included-middle reasoning, it is not surprising at all that you do not understand what I am talking about.
you've not defined R so this is a meaningless statement.
I did much more than that, I defined (by the included-middle reasoning) Organic Natural Numbers, which are based on our most basic congition’s abilities to count.
you did indeed define a set which had no well defined arithmetic, and was completely useless. you yourself have admitted that you have not found a use for it.
Peano’s or ZF are only a shadow of them.
Then instead of the usual “old crap” response about them, why can’t you simply ask me to explain to you how we can use the included-middle reasoning to make Math out of them?
he did ask you to explain "included middle" you failed to do so.
I have no problem to tell you in details about any specific term that you wish to know, but for this please do at least 3 things:
1) When you don’t understand something, simply say that you don’t understand it, instead of the repeating on the unnecessary “nonsense” and “crap” reflex-like responses.
2) I will not answer to any response which is based on commands, for example: “I want you to tell me…”.[quote]
that is hypocritical, meeting a demand with a demand, especially given your repeated posting of said crap with demands that we read it all.
[quote]3) Please be more focused when you ask some question because -‘what they are in terms of your "first principles"’- is too general.
no that's not true, more that you've never been able to adequately explain anything in langauge anyone else understands
Please understand that when you ask a focused question, you give me a better chance to know where to start my answer, in order to develop a meaningful dialog between us.
several times we have asked you explicit and exact questions, never have you answered adequately, what makes you think we will believe you will start now?
here is a simple one, you keep talking about the real numbers, but you don't say what you mean by them, so define them.
define scale factor, that is a repeated request that has never been met.
If you understand and agree with 1) , 2) and 3) of the previous part, then there is a good chance that we can develop a fruitful dialog between us.
Well, curiosity is a wonderful basis for a dialog between us, because I am curious too to know what you have to say after you understand the included-middle reasoning.
This is the tautology of 0_XOR_1 reasoning, but not necessarily the tautology of the included-middle reasoning.
is that your new use of the word tautology? just because you use the words doesn't mean you understand them or are using them correctly.
apologies to Tom; whilst Doron was off on this bizarre ramble I didn't post, but he's back to making spurious claims. However, I will only respond again if he actually makes any statements that answer the questions he has asked us to ask of him.
Ok matt, here is the first lesson of included-middle arithmetic:
By my included-middle axiomatic system there are two kinds of cardinals, two kinds of ordinals, and a scale factor, Which are used as the basis to define R and also my number system.
UC = Urelement Cardinal
QC = Quantitative Cardinal
IO = Internal Ordinal
EO = External Ordinal
SF = Scale Factor
Basic Scale factor is the ratio between 0 {.} or 1 {._.} to any other segment which is not 0_1.
Scale factor is {.} or any {._.} when it is used as the basic factor for the entire number system.
The basic arithmetical structure:
The first element of any arithmetic operation is always {.} or some {._.}.
The next parameter can be UC, QC, SF or a combination of them.
Any arithmetic always has a left to right direction of operations and the result of each pair is the basis of the next operation:
for example:
Addition and subtraction examples (only UC or {.} or {._.} are used):
0__2 + 0_1 = 0___3 (a new segment)
0__2 + 0_1.347… = 0____4.347…
{0__2} + {0_1} = {0__2, 0_1} (a new set of segments which its total length = 0___3)
{0__2} + {0_1.347…} = {0__2, 0_1.347…} (a set of segments which its total length = 0____4.347…
0__2 – 0_1 = 0_1 (a new segment)
0_1 – 0__2 = 1_0
0_1 – 0_1 = {}
0_1 – 1_0 = 0
1_0 – 0_1 = 0
1_0 – 1_0 = {}
1_0 – 1_0 – 1_0 = {} – 1_0 = 1_0
1_0 – 0_1 – 0_1 = 0 – 0_1 = 1_0
-0_1 = 1_0
-1_0 = 0_1
0 + 0 = 0
{0} + {0} = {0, 0}
0 - 0 = {}
{0} - {0} = {}
Multiplication and relations examples (QC or SF are used):
0__2 * QC3 = {0__2, 0__2, 0__2}
0___3 * QC2 = {0___3, 0___3}
The two results above are noncommutative (only if QC is used).
0_.5 * QC2 = {0_.5, 0_.5} (a set of segments which its total length = 0_1)
0_.5 * SF2 = 0_1
0__2 * SF3 = 0______6
0___3 * SF2 = 0______6
0__2 * SF0.5 = 0_1
-0__2 * SF0.5 = 1_0
0__2 / QC2 = {0_1, 0_1}
0__2 / SF2 = 0_1
0__2 / SF.5 = 0____4
0__2 / SF3.14…(PI) = 0__2/PI (and if we want we can notate it by a single symbol like 0__2/PI=@)
Also we can combine QC and SF for example:
0__2 / QC3 SF.14… = {0__2/3/SF.14…, 0__2/3/SF.14…, 0__2/3/SF.14…}
0__2 / SF.14… QC3 = {0__2/SF.14…/3, 0__2/SF.14…/3, 0__2/SF.14…/3}
0__2 / SF.14 = 0__2/SF.14…
X / 0 = {__}
0 / X = 0
As for a sqrt(2), it is the ratio between x-axis and y-axis identical segments.
IO and EO can be seen by using my new number system:
matt grime
Aug17-04, 08:23 AM
That is an attempt, I suppose, though it only brings more questions (and doesn't really define anything), such as where on earth did 1.347... come from?
It appears you're just labelling things with decimal expansions and/or integers, and adding them using the rules of proper mathematics that you are dismissing, so it makes no consistent sense. In short, unless you can explain self consistently and without circularity where all the ordinary numbers you are using to label come from and their properties and rules of arithemetic, then you're not doing anything at all pointful.
You are also breaking the rules you laid out at the start of the thread.
0_1.347... = 0_1 + 0_.347...(where .347... is a representation of a single path along base 10 fractal)
matt grime
Aug17-04, 08:57 AM
"where .347... is a representation of a single path along base 10 fractal"
yep, there's your completely undefined concept again! (what on earth can base ten mean if yo'uve not defined ten as a numeral?)
so once more evasion with bad answers that you probably think are good answers and we're being stupid bodyguards and so on, oh hum, it never ends at this rate: self aggrandising claimants tend not to give in, so I shall.
yep, there's your completely undefined concept again! (what on earth can base ten mean if yo'uve not defined ten as a numeral?)
It is nice that you ignore my included-middle axiomatic system, and continue to "define" my system according to 0_XOR_1 reasoning.
10 = 0__________10 if 1 = 0_1
A post for Nereid.
1) Mass destruction weapon technology is no longer in the hands of so called developed and rational countries.
Take Iran's case for example.
2) Mass destruction weapon technology is very close to be in the hands of organizations like Al-Kaida.Thanks Lama, but to be honest I don't know whether to laugh or cry (so I laughed)!
Nuclear proliferation sure is a worry, and some 'worst case scenarios' are truly horrible (e.g. nuclear war between India and Pakistan). However, it's a huge stretch from this to the destruction of life on Earth, or the end of Homo sap., or even the end of a global economy.
For starters, only a possible Chinese superpower could recreate competitors with the ability to destroy Homo sap.; nukes in the hands of others would create regional disasters only.
But a bigger flaw re WMD is the fact that biological WMD are far easier to make, and can be just as devastating as nukes ... and that capability has been with us from well before WW II. Further, that capability was an inevitable consequence of what was arguably the greatest advance in human technology ... the control of infectious diseases.1) There are "good" chances that we already missed our last train.
2) Every student in the near future will use methods which combine his own unique personal (moral and technical) contribution to save and develop complexity that is based on simplicity (which is actually the basis of life development).
Through this attitude,(which is based on the art of dialog development between different and unique points of view of other persons) each young mind will learn first of all to cherish the fascinating interaction between its own life and the life phenomena in general.Nice words, but it doesn't answer my question: how does your 'new logic' eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?
I mean, not only would have have to alter science, but you'd have to extend all religions and ethical principles, and give all such such power as to unequivocably change everyone's motivations.
Since, AFAIK, evil thoughts arise at least somewhat independently of one's education - in anything, not just how to do science - the existence of magic fairy dust logic doesn't help much.
Finally, suppose this 'new logic' could be developed and is as wonderful as you say ... if hugely intelligent and capable folk such as PF members can make neither head nor tail of your ideas, why do you think that little Bertie, with all his learning difficulties, could master it?
Nice words, but it doesn't answer my question: how does your 'new logic' eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?
No single method can eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder, it only can reduce its chances to become our reality.
If each person in this planet has a deep understanding which is based on life cherishing, then the chances of the arising of a new Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot are reduced.
My Idea is no more then a one very first step for this goal and it is nothing but one of many other actions that should be made by governments, educational system, organizations, companies, communities and privet persons that have the common goal, which is to care day by day about the existence and moral/technical level of our civilization in order save and develop our life.
Finally, suppose this 'new logic' could be developed and is as wonderful as you say ... if hugely intelligent and capable folk such as PF members can make neither head nor tail of your ideas, why do you think that little Bertie, with all his learning difficulties, could master it?
The logic that I am talking about is based on the essence of what we are as complex yet simple living things, that REALY try day by day find the best within them in any aspect of their life and then they choose to share it by an open dialog that can give them the ability to express themselves in non-destructive ways.
This internal/external dialog put any one of its participators in a better position that he was before the dialog.
As for my system, I only started to develop the first outlines of it, and it is hard to understood by any parson that believe that there cannot be any connection between morality and exact science methods.
Since I realized that nobody here can grasp my ideas until now, I started to show examples of arithmetical operations, which are based on an included-middle reasoning and also connected to R.
It can be found here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155
fbsthreads
Aug17-04, 12:28 PM
if you or anyone else can figure out a new system of maths, then what is to stop terrorists from developing their own system of maths such as the one we have now and use it to there own advantage.
YOU have questioned current maths and want to replace it, but that is just killing the king to become the king yourself.
what is to stop people figuring out that your maths could be replaced by one that doesn't include morals.
i can't believe i'm having to say these words, as even a child could grasp the simple concept the maths and ethics don't go together.
Also have people noticed how Lama only deals with some points in peoples posts and ignores the rest.
I bet if he replies to this he will snip it so that he doesn't have to deal the problem of freethinking i mentioned at the begining of this post.
Hi fbsthreads,
Please read my post for you at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287407&postcount=149
if you or anyone else can figure out a new system of maths, then what is to stop terrorists from developing their own system of maths such as the one we have now and use it to there own advantage.
Since the reasoning that I am talking about is a combination of technical and moral training of the mind, then this kind of reasoning can be our "Athnes" method which can deal with any "Sparta" method and win for life.
We should not leave our destiny in the hands of "Sparta".
i can't believe i'm having to say these words, as even a child could grasp the simple concept the maths and ethics don't go together.
If you open your eyes to my work, we will see that there can be a connection between morality and Mathematical reasoning, after all both of them can be found within us, all we have to do is to find the proper methods in order to construct the bridge between them.
Also please read my posts to Nereid in:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287404&postcount=148
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161
Some arithmetic that is based on included-middle reasoning can be found here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155
Alkatran
Aug17-04, 03:10 PM
Since the reasoning that I am talking about is a combination of technical and moral training of the mind, then this kind of reasoning can be our "Athnes" method which can deal with any "Sparta" method and win for life.
We should not leave our destiny in the hands of "Sparta".
"Technical and moral training of the mind"
Sounds like brainwashin at its finest. What about the people who don't want to learn? What's to stop them from making their own system, since they can think for themselves.
Wow, 163 posts in less than a week! I wish some of my threads were so 'popular' :cry:
This is the first time I participated in such a thread, and I can see that several others have had rich experience in discussions with Lama. Now, do I want to repeat the experience? Let's see ...
Alkatran
Aug17-04, 03:33 PM
Wow, 163 posts in less than a week! I wish some of my threads were so 'popular' :cry:
This is the first time I participated in such a thread, and I can see that several others have had rich experience in discussions with Lama. Now, do I want to repeat the experience? Let's see ...
I remember posts about a certain "push" theory which grew by about 100-200 per day...
Hi Nereid,
Please look at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161
Alkatran
Aug17-04, 03:45 PM
Hi Nereid,
Please look at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161
If each person in this planet has a deep understanding which is based on life cherishing, then the chances of the arising of a new Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot are reduced.
The problem is that you can never have everyone understand an idea like that. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN. This is the kind of thinking where communism works (idealistic).
The problem is that you can never have everyone understand an idea like that. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN. This is the kind of thinking where communism works (idealistic).
So, what do you suggesting , to speak about Idealism and do nothing?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.