Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

  1. Aug 12, 2004 #1
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2004 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Would you mind explaining to me how this thread is any different from the one that I just locked?
     
  4. Aug 12, 2004 #3
    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.
     
  5. Aug 12, 2004 #4

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  6. Aug 12, 2004 #5
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
  7. Aug 12, 2004 #6
    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?
     
  8. Aug 12, 2004 #7

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Because Lama is a crackpot, and this is what crackpots do.

    - Warren
     
  9. Aug 12, 2004 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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..
     
  10. Aug 12, 2004 #9
    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.
     
  11. Aug 12, 2004 #10
    Lama, I posted a question for the executioners. I'm still waiting for an answer.
     
  12. Aug 12, 2004 #11
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
  13. Aug 12, 2004 #12

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Lama,

    You are truly one of the most prolific and staunch crackpots I've ever met. I applaud you.

    - Warren
     
  14. Aug 12, 2004 #13
    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.
     
  15. Aug 12, 2004 #14

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  16. Aug 12, 2004 #15
    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?
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
  17. Aug 12, 2004 #16

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  18. Aug 12, 2004 #17
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2004
  19. Aug 12, 2004 #18
    learn some math for starters....
     
  20. Aug 12, 2004 #19
    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.
     
  21. Aug 12, 2004 #20
    don't you see that noone here is interested in that?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Create or die (a 3 months team mission)
  1. Do atoms ever die? (Replies: 5)

Loading...