Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lama
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
168 replies · 21K views
Physics news on Phys.org
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'?
 
Lama said:
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.
 
Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!
 
Locrian said:
Guys Stop All The Bickering We're Gonna Die!
Ok! But Why Do You Talk Like This?
 
Because that's what happens when you are being sarcastic and post in all caps.
 
Lama said:
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.
 
Tom Mattson said:
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) .
 
Last edited:
Lama said:
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.
 
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 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 on 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.

As I see it, the internet is The place to participate other people in such thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the reasons that no one wants to play your game here, or anywhere else on the internet, are:

1) Morality and mathematics are not related.
2) Mainstream mathematics is not going to destroy the world.
3) Your nonsensical "system" is not going to prevent the destruction of the world.
4) If you've been working on this idea of yours for 20 years and this is all you have to show for it, you're obviously not worth listening to.

- Warren
 
Chroot,

I believe that you know the life story of The great Mathematician Evariste Galois.

Has we know, his Mathematical genius did not save him from his poor end.

If in his time there was a deep connection between morality and reasoning within the framework of the language of Mathematics, then I believe that there was a reasonable chance that this particular evening of Evariste Galois was not the last evening of his life.

As I wrote in my previous post, our all civilization is in its Galois last evening, because there is no deep connection between our morality and our technological skills.

Forget about me and my work and ask yourself: "As a member of the scientific community, what is my contribution to develop a reasonable method that can find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?

And if you want a motivation to ask yourself this question, then think that the answer has to be given to your children and to your grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
You think if Galois were working on a mathematical system based on emptiness "{}" and fullness "{__}" he would not have been a political activist, threatened the King, or participated in the duel that took his life? :smile:

- Warren
 
chroot said:
You think if Galois were working on a mathematical system based on emptiness "{}" and fullness "{__}" he would not have been a political activist, threatened the King, or participated in the duel that took his life?

When you think about the language of Mathematics from an included-middle reasoning it leads you to include your own cognition as one of the fundamental elements of your Mathematical research, and this is the gateway to develop a deep connection between your internal properties as a human being and the technical methods that you develop.

But you ignored the main point of my previous post, which is your answer to your children and your grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
Lama said:
"As a member of the scientific community, what is my contribution to develop a reasonable method that can find the balance between our morality level and our technological level"?


Ethics is related to game theory:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/



QUOTE:

Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among rational players produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those players, none of which might have been intended by any of them.


 
Russell E. Rierson said:
Ethics is related to game theory:
But what is the deep common motivation that is the basis of any stable agreement between the parts?

Game theory only reduces these things to quantitative models, that tel us nothing about the quality of these deep connections.
 
Last edited:
chroot said:
Actually, Lama, I'm perfectly capable of dealing with this. Like so many of your other threads which went on for pages and only resulted in locks, this thread is off to a great start.

- Warren
Isn't it curious that chroot brought this to the attention of PF readers, but not Lama?

Lama, did you start lots of other threads here in PF? Did those threads result in them being locked? Were those threads different from this, in any significant way?
 
Nereid said:
Were those threads different from this, in any significant way?
In this thread the stage is yours, to show how you can use your own ability in order to solve an unfamiliar situation and help your team and yourself to survive after the 3 months.

Until this moment, the people in this threat unfortunately clearly showed that they have no ability to think beyond the limitations of the standard academic system, which is based on 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning.

Furthermore, Russell E. Rierson gave game theory as an example of how Mathematics can be a gateway that help us to survive conflicts by analyze the reasoning that stand behind them and he quoted Stanford university website, where we can find this sentence:

"Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among rational players..."

In my previous post I said that this theory cannot fully answer to this question if:

1) It does nothing to show what it means by using the words 'rational player', because it takes 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning as the one and only one meaning for the words 'rational player'.

2) There is one and only one real meaning to the word 'strategic', which is: "How we avoid n of L in Drake's equation http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm?" (as clearly explained in post #70 https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285437&postcount=70)

I suggest anyone of you to open, for example, Google and search for:

"Drake's equation" + "game theory"

And you will see by yourself the "strategic big efforts" of the human race to give its solution to L of Drake's equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lama said:
But what is the deep common motivation that is the basis of any stable agreement between the parts?


Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion. What we seek[per qualia] are actually just vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of feeble human intellects, desperately searching for a way to justify our existence.




Here is a quote of Richard Feynman:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. "


Feynman appears to be expressing a mathematical paradox, basically in the form of a statement:

We can only be certain that we are not-certain. :eek: :eek: :eek:

X iff not-X

:cry: :cry: :cry:


So we employ variables and meta-variables of arbitrary logical order, owing to the fact, that semantics MUST be beholden to syntax.


Suppose a person called X, stands up and says, "This assertion is false."

Let S denote the statement uttered; let p be the proposition the person makes by uttering S. Then the utterance of the phrase "This assertion" refers to the claim p. It follows that, in uttering the words "This assertion is false," X is making the claim "p is false". Thus , p and "p is false" are one and the same:

p = [p is false]

By making the claim, X is implicitly referring to the context in which the claim is stated. Let c symbolically represent the context for which the sentence refers.

X's uttering of the words "This assertion" refers to the context, c, which entails p.

[c entails p]


That is to say, p must be the same as [c entails p] due to the fact that X is referring to both p and [c entails p] via the utterance of the phrase "This assertion."

If X's assertion is true then [c entails p] is true

p = [p is false]

[c entails p is false] is true


This creates a contradiction, ergo X's claim that [p is false] is false.

[c entails p is false] is false


This appears to be the same contradictory state of affairs as in the previous cases of the Liars Paradox.

Conclusion?:

c cannot be the appropriate context.
 
Russell E. Rierson said:
Conclusion?:

c cannot be the appropriate context.
But Dear Russell E. Rierson all you did is to use again 0_XOR_1 reasoning.

My suggestion to avoid n of L of Drake's equation, is based on an included-middle reasoning, which is:

The Art of interactions between independent opposites in non-destructive ways.
 
Last edited:
Lama said:
In short, I am not going to talk about my work in this thread.

matt grime said:
will anyone offer me odds on that?

How much did you win?
 
Hi Locrian,

Do you understand the goal of this thread?
 
Yes.

To annoy the moderators.
 
chroot said:
My my, your first post just keeps getting more and more convoluted and ridiculous...
Chroot, please read also post #79 and please explain us in details, that we all learn from your wisdom, why, for example, post #79 is ridiculous?
 
Post #79 is ridiculous because in it you're trying to assert that game theory has something to do with morality, and your notion that the end of human civilization is going to be caused by mathematics -- all of which are ridiculous statements.

We all know you're not capable of recognizing your own illucidity, but you surely do seem able to recognize that everyone else that ever participates in your threads is against you. Why do you suppose this is?

- Warren
 
Chroot,

I say exactly the opposite, which is:

Because game theory has no connection to morality, it cannot be the gateway between our morality level and our technological skills.

Furthermore, and the and of this post I ask people to find out how many researches they can find, which are related to strategic solutions to avoid n of L?

And if you will search you will not find even a one series scientific research that try to find some solution to the most important question, which is directly connected to our own survival.

So if game theory has no answer to this most important question, then please show again your wisdom and explain us, how we are going to survive the power of our technology, without some logical reasoning that can be a gateway between our morality level and out technological skills?

But before you answer to this question, you have to understand that this blind power is based on the logical reasoning (0_XOR_1) of the standard language of Mathematics, and because of this dichotomy between this logic and our morality, we find ourselves very very close to determine n of L in Drake's equation.
 
Last edited:
I wish you'd stop calling "finite civilization lifetime" the "n of L," since you seem to have made up "n." Once again, you seem to have an affinity for redefining terms without really explaining them.

Mankind is going to avoid blowing itself up by making reasonable political choices, like not dropping nuclear bombs, and reasonable environmental choices, like not polluting all the water.

None of this has anything to do with mathematics. At your core, you seem to believe that mathematics is evil, and will somehow cause the destruction of the world. You also seem to believe that your weak-minded alternative is somehow not evil, and won't cause the destruction of the world.

At this point, you have failed to demonstrate why existing mathematics will destroy the world. You have also failed to demonstrate why your weak-minded alternative won't destroy the world. I doubt any such demonstrations will be forth-coming. I doubt that you have any reason to believe the things you believe, and that you are simply mentally ill.

- Warren