Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

CrankFan · Aug 16, 2004

THANKS FOR USING BIG, COLORFUL FONTS IT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND. I WISH TOM APOSTOL WROTE LIKE THAT TOO.

PFanalog57 · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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.

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Carnkfun and Russell E. Rierson,

Please give your details remarks on post #119 (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286575&postcount=119) , #120

PFanalog57 · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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

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

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Russell E. Rierson said:

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 · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

Carnkfun and Russell E. Rierson,

Please give your details remarks on post #119 (https://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).

PFanalog57 · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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?

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Russell E. Rierson said:

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?

Russell E. Rierson said:

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.

Russell E. Rierson said:

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.

Marijn · Aug 16, 2004

@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 science.

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...

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Marijn said:

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.

Marijn said:

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).

Marijn said:

Nowhere in this tread have you answered a single question in a normal (that means not evasive) way

Please give a detailed example.

JasonRox · Aug 16, 2004

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!"?

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

JasonRox said:

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

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Crankfan said:

You seem to think that somehow the rules of classical mathematical reasoning will bring about the downfall of humanity, which is laughable.

Locrian · Aug 16, 2004

When you have to use yourself as a reference to explain an idea, you have truly and completely failed.

Nereid · Aug 16, 2004

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.

Nereid · Aug 16, 2004

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).

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Nereid said:

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 · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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:

Lama said:

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.

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

Nereid said:

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.

Nereid said:

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."

Lama · Aug 16, 2004

CrankFan said:

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.

Nereid · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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?

Nereid · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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 · Aug 16, 2004

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 · Aug 16, 2004

Hah, good stuff.

CrankFan · Aug 16, 2004

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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.

Lama said:

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]

Lama said:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/My-first-axioms.pdf

Yes, I've seen that document in several forms. It's devoid of value.

Lama said:

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 · Aug 16, 2004

CrankFan said:

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 · Aug 17, 2004

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.

Lama · Aug 17, 2004

A post for Nereid.

Nereid said:

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.

Nereid said:

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.

Lama · Aug 17, 2004

A post for fbsthreads.

fbsthreads said:

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 Langauge 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.

PFanalog57 · Aug 17, 2004

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?

Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

Similar threads

B Generator shaft rotation through spring and magnet (Is this feasible in Physics?)

B How do walk-in freezers not give people hypothermia? [they do]

I Question about the absorption of heat based on color

B Warp drive research of Prof David Pares

B Why would an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses be colder than with them?

Insights Thinking Outside The Box Versus Knowing What’s In The Box

Insights Why Entangled Photon-Polarization Qubits Violate Bell’s Inequality

Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect

Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight

Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight

Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers