- #1
Lama
- 467
- 0
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 Langauge 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 Langauge in order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Langauge 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 Langauge 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.
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 Langauge 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 Langauge in order to find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?
If our answer is: "The Langauge 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 Langauge 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.
Last edited:
