Register to reply

Does this make sense?

by Xelthen
Tags: sense
Share this thread:
Xelthen
#1
Nov11-08, 10:07 AM
P: 4
So I created a theory that was evidently garbage and so I have disposed of it. Problem solved.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists develop 'electronic nose' for rapid detection of C. diff infection
Why plants in the office make us more productive
Tesla Motors dealing as states play factory poker
out of whack
#2
Nov11-08, 11:02 AM
P: 465
Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
Does this make sense?
No. And it has nothing to do with breaking the laws of physics. The reason for all the blank stares is that you present unsupported disconnected claims that don't add up to anything coherent so it's like reading about a dream you had. Throw it away completely.
CaptainQuasar
#3
Nov11-08, 01:42 PM
P: 705
Yeah, I've pretty much got to agree with out of whack, and go even further to say that even your individual claims aren't coherent. Take your sentence, "This quantification process must involve determining what is real and what isn't real as to be an entity in the inclusion": the thing that determines what is real and what isn't, is that real?

Or take this one: "Reality is all that is real and therefore no further sets are required": now "reality is all that is real" is a tautology, it doesn't express anything at all. So there's no syllogism, there's no way to have a "therefore" or draw a conclusion from the tautology.

CaptainQuasar
#4
Nov11-08, 03:50 PM
P: 705
Does this make sense?

Well, in trying to be helpful, I went on to write this other comment before I saw your most recent post:

But I would say that there's probably really nothing wrong with the sort of things you're thinking about, it's got to do with your communication skills. In the course of working out an intelligible way to articulate an idea you often recognize flaws or self-contradictions in the idea that have to be ironed out before it could even be communicated, much less evaluated. This is why some of the very earliest philosophers were primarily concerned with grammar and language, like Śākaṭāyana and Pāṇini in India, the Stoics, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Dionysius Thrax in the Greek world, and the Míngjiā / School of Names 名家 in China - even the human race as a whole had to get a command of language down before it could get to seriously talking about other things.


But I think you're still having problems with that, or perhaps just basic logic.

"Since this information expresses both spatial and time dimensions, it has to be a source from outside of the space-time manifold."

Why? It sounds cool, but what would happen if information expressing both space and time dimensions came from within the space-time manifold (again, whatever that is... this does not resemble the normal meaning of "manifold" in math and science, which is just a concept, like a specific category of really complex shapes.) Would the universe explode? You seem to be making this rule up, as well as others, out of thin air.

You say this: "So let's say this "thing" that is transmitting information from outside of space and time is mapped T: X → X." T is just any one-to-one relationship of the members of a set. It could be nothing more than an identity function. But next you say "Then we know that it came to be from within itself" which does not follow at all nor relate to a one-to-one function being possible on a set.

Which is possible with any set whatsoever, anyways, existent or otherwise, not just a "thing that is outside time and space".

Further, "So now we know that what determines what is real is real because it is mapped as such inside itself" makes no sense. It's real because it says it's real, and we really ought to trust it? Things don't just prove themselves into existence.

I think that a good practice for you, before trying to explain to others, would be to consider anything like this you come up with and see if you can use it to "prove" the existence of other things - you may find that, if it were valid, the same series of steps could prove the existence of anything whatsoever.

Don't give up on thinking about this stuff, but you often have to put alot of work into an idea before it's "ready for prime time" to try to communicate to other people. And you often find that you really need to start from existing frameworks like science. And also, you usually have to throw out hundreds or thousands of ideas or more when you find flaws in them, for every one that turns out to be useful.
CaptainQuasar
#5
Nov11-08, 03:58 PM
P: 705
Another note: some of the blank stares may have meant, "there are so many things wrong with that, I don't even know where to start."
WaveJumper
#6
Nov11-08, 04:40 PM
P: 649
I think he is suggesting(alluding in a lame manner)) that the ingredients of reality are essentially: matter-->(condensed)energy-->information. If that is the case, then i agree, but i don't know if that word salad was meant to say what i think it says. If it is, it would make Xelthen another soliptist, but then what was the point of the OP?
CaptainQuasar
#7
Nov11-08, 04:50 PM
P: 705
I would say, Xelthen, that it seems that you are mostly imitating the way you've seen others use words, rather than being conscious of what those words mean and using them constructively for communication. It's because you aren't ensuring that the the meanings of the words you're using really fit together into a coherent message that what you say makes no sense to the rest of us.
Xelthen
#8
Nov11-08, 06:08 PM
P: 4
Quote Quote by CaptainQuasar View Post
Well, in trying to be helpful, I went on to write this other comment before I saw your most recent post:

But I would say that there's probably really nothing wrong with the sort of things you're thinking about, it's got to do with your communication skills. In the course of working out an intelligible way to articulate an idea you often recognize flaws or self-contradictions in the idea that have to be ironed out before it could even be communicated, much less evaluated. This is why some of the very earliest philosophers were primarily concerned with grammar and language, like Śākaṭāyana and Pāṇini in India, the Stoics, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Dionysius Thrax in the Greek world, and the Míngjiā / School of Names 名家 in China - even the human race as a whole had to get a command of language down before it could get to seriously talking about other things.


But I think you're still having problems with that, or perhaps just basic logic.

"Since this information expresses both spatial and time dimensions, it has to be a source from outside of the space-time manifold."

Why? It sounds cool, but what would happen if information expressing both space and time dimensions came from within the space-time manifold (again, whatever that is... this does not resemble the normal meaning of "manifold" in math and science, which is just a concept, like a specific category of really complex shapes.) Would the universe explode?
If information expressed space and time in space and time wouldn't that be a contradiction? That's like instead of processing of information going from the hard drive to the monitor it just processes in the monitor. There had to be something else that processed it before hand so that it could be projected on the screen. So yes - I did make the rule up but I was making the rule up based on what I thought was a logical inference.

You say this: "So let's say this "thing" that is transmitting information from outside of space and time is mapped T: X → X." T is just any one-to-one relationship of the members of a set. It could be nothing more than an identity function. But next you say "Then we know that it came to be from within itself" which does not follow at all nor relate to a one-to-one function being possible on a set.
Endomorphisms are functions from a set S into itself. If it is a function of itself why would it not be in itself? All that I was trying to say is that what configures reality is the only to determine its own identity.

Which is possible with any set whatsoever, anyways, existent or otherwise, not just a "thing that is outside time and space".
I know that.

Further, "So now we know that what determines what is real is real because it is mapped as such inside itself" makes no sense. It's real because it says it's real, and we really ought to trust it? Things don't just prove themselves into existence.
Okay - take time. Every observer in this universe is relative to it and everything in this universe is related to it in some way (mass, force, energy, momentum). Time is expressed in some of the most complex physics and mathematics equations known to humanity. Newton once said "I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects."

How did time come to be? Well certainly time must have come from somewhere. How did anyone propose anything about time if they didn't know where it came from? After all, time doesn't just prove itself into existence. Yet time did prove itself into existence. Just as many of the physical forces proved themselves into existence. Someone came along one day and said "Hey, wait a minute here. That spinning looks like caused by something. It seems to be moving in this way because of the center." Eventually this becomes center of mass. Someone starts thinking about the dynamics behind it. The speed, the torque, the mass. All of this was always there - it just wasn't quite that obvious to people at one time.

I think that a good practice for you, before trying to explain to others, would be to consider anything like this you come up with and see if you can use it to "prove" the existence of other things - you may find that, if it were valid, the same series of steps could prove the existence of anything whatsoever.
How is this not valid? This table is constructed particles: of atoms. It is constructed of electrons and neutrons. It is constructed of possibly even smaller particles such as strings. How is are all of these things and there interworkings expressed? Through information. How is this information expressed? It has to be expressed through something.

While I find your tips encouraging, I also find it insulting that you imply that I am illogical and that I came up with us out of thin air. I did not come up with this out of thin air. I came up with this when I started thinking about computationalism and the properties of matter. I am drinking out of a cup. This cup is cylindrical. I determined the volume of this cup is based of of its height and its radius. This cup has both a geometrical and algebraic structure. This cup is made of particles. The weight of this cup while I am holding it is relative to a higher force. The gravitational force. How am I percieving this cup? Would it be here if I am not here? Is true reality based off of how I understand information and if so, where is this information coming from?

I also thank you for saying that I did not even consider science to be a factor when I typed this up.

Also, be aware when I typed this up that I did not know what solopsism was and I still find it hard to believe that the no conceptual framework can be made between the mind and the physical.
CaptainQuasar
#9
Nov11-08, 07:12 PM
P: 705
Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
If information expressed space and time in space and time wouldn't that be a contradiction? That's like instead of processing of information going from the hard drive to the monitor it just processes in the monitor. There had to be something else that processed it before hand so that it could be projected on the screen. So yes - I did make the rule up but I was making the rule up based on what I thought was a logical inference.
This is called a priori reasoning. It can be handy sometimes but usually it just leads you wherever you want to go, without any brakes.

Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
Endomorphisms are functions from a set S into itself. If it is a function of itself why would it not be in itself?
Well, if the members of the set aren't set functions it can't be a member of itself.

Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
All that I was trying to say is that what configures reality is the only to determine its own identity.
You speak as though it's a natural and straightforward thing to declare that some aspect of set theory controls reality. That's not straightforward, it's not something you can just assume and expect everyone to accept.

Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
How did time come to be? Well certainly time must have come from somewhere. How did anyone propose anything about time if they didn't know where it came from? After all, time doesn't just prove itself into existence. Yet time did prove itself into existence. Just as many of the physical forces proved themselves into existence.
Those are very profound cosmological assertions to make, that time and various physical forces are uncaused and did not develop from some other thing. Not impossible, but again things that you can't just use as the assumptions of arguments and expect everyone to automatically accept.

Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
How is this not valid? This table is constructed particles: of atoms. It is constructed of electrons and neutrons. It is constructed of possibly even smaller particles such as strings. How is are all of these things and there interworkings expressed? Through information. How is this information expressed? It has to be expressed through something.
"Things have to be expressed through something." Again, a rule you're making up out of thin air. Putting aside even that the semantic meaning of that is vague without many supporting definitions.

The above statements simply assume your conclusion as a starting point: that atoms, electrons, neutrons, and other particles are merely information that must be expressed through some medium to effect reality.

Quote Quote by Xelthen View Post
While I find your tips encouraging, I also find it insulting that you imply that I am illogical and that I came up with us out of thin air. I did not come up with this out of thin air.
First of all, you have advanced things like tautologies and circular reasoning so you're definitely capable of being illogical.

Secondly, I didn't say that you came up with the whole idea out of thin air. I have been pointing out several particular rules that you have simply stated without basis and appear to expect people to accept.

Deleting your entire original post isn't going to make anyone take you more seriously. In fact it makes it look like you're throwing a tantrum.

Like I said, don't stop thinking about this stuff, but to get people to take you seriously - especially scientists - your ideas have to be well-articulated and have to pass all sorts of rigorous tests of logic and evidence. You may as well beat the stuffing out of your own ideas testing them this way yourself beforehand. People like out of whack above (and me, for that matter, on most days) won't look twice at an idea if it presents tautologies and other things like that.
CaptainQuasar
#10
Nov11-08, 07:15 PM
P: 705
One other thing: you may be interested in the book A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram. But many mainstream scientists do not take him seriously.
Xelthen
#11
Nov11-08, 09:39 PM
P: 4
Those are very profound cosmological assertions to make, that time and various physical forces are uncaused and did not develop from some other thing. Not impossible, but again things that you can't just use as the assumptions of arguments and expect everyone to automatically accept.
BS. I never said anything about physical forces being uncaused and not developing from some other thing. I said that causal forces come into existence to human society when we ask questions. That's not to say they weren't always there or didn't come about from something else. That is simply to say that even though they were with us - we did not notice there existence. They didn't become integrated into society yet. Nice strawman argument by speaking for me and taking me out of context.

"Things have to be expressed through something." Again, a rule you're making up out of thin air. Putting aside even that the semantic meaning of that is vague without many supporting definitions.
The random decay of an isotope. What describes the decay of that isotope? Or the electrochemical processes of the human brain? What describes it all? How do obtain knowledge? How do we grow?

I'll admit. I never had evidence. That's why I deleted my post. I didn't have reasoning. I decided this would spare people from coming in and criticizing about things that I didn't have - like tons of evidence. This is why I said to begin with it was a philosophical implication - not a theory.

you have advanced things like tautologies and circular reasoning so you're definitely capable of being illogical
Just because I stated something illogical doesn't mean I'm illogical. You know nothing about my character. This is simply you making too many assumptions. The tautology in the original post was a bad case a wording.

People like out of whack above (and me, for that matter, on most days) won't look twice at an idea if it presents tautologies and other things like that.
So you admit to being close minded.

The posts are deleted because I have made my decision. This is no longer up for debate. I was wrong to post here in the first place as I already had the feeling it didn't make sense and would be discarded by critics immediately but honestly this turned into a judgement of my character instead of a judgement of my thoughts. Because of this, I will no longer continue this discussion.
CaptainQuasar
#12
Nov12-08, 11:01 AM
P: 705
Look man, you're behaving childishly and trollishly here and trying to play the martyr. I don't need to have some deep understanding of your character to be able to describe that behavior. I wouldn't declare myself as the extremity of Buddha-like in my open-mindedness and acceptance, but it's because people with poorly-thought-out ideas often react this way in response to rigorous criticism that I wouldn't normally engage a post like yours.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Does this make sense? Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
Does this make any sense? Special & General Relativity 2
Does this make any sense? General Physics 1
Does this make sense Introductory Physics Homework 3