Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

[Lama]

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.

 

[chroot]

I also can't lift up mountains. Pity.

- Warren

 

[Lama]

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?

 

[chroot]

I'm not trying to develop a system. I'm trying to learn the one that actually seems to work.

- Warren

 

[Lama]

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Lama]

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]

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?

 

[Lama]

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]

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.

 

[Lama]

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 exactly 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]

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.

 

[Lama]

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]

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]

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.

For example, is the set half full, or is the set half empty?

 

[Lama]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[Lama]

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]

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.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[Lama]

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?".

 

[quantumdude]

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?

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[chroot]

No one has aired any views other than that your original post was nonsense. Tom has not changed that.

- Warren

 

[Lama]

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'?

 

[sparkster]

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]

Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!

 

[sparkster]

Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!

Ok! But Why Do You Talk Like This?

 

[Locrian]

Because that's what happens when you are being sarcastic and post in all caps.

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[Lama]

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) .

 

[quantumdude]

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.

 

[Lama]

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 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 on 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.

As I see it, the internet is The place to participate other people in such thoughts.