Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

[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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[chroot]

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?

- Warren

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[PFanalog57]

"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.

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[chroot]

But you ignored the main point of my previous post

And you seem to have ignored my question entirely.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[PFanalog57]

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.

X iff not-X




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.

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[Locrian]

In short, I am not going to talk about my work in this thread.

will anyone offer me odds on that?

How much did you win?

 

[Lama]

Hi Locrian,

Do you understand the goal of this thread?

 

[Locrian]

Yes.

To annoy the moderators.

 

[Lama]

To annoy the moderators

Maybe if you read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=283514&postcount=1 you will change your mind.

 

[chroot]

My my, your first post just keeps getting more and more convoluted and ridiculous...

- Warren

 

[Lama]

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Lama]

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 Langauge 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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Nereid]

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.

Who is in my team (apart from myself)?
Why do I not know who is in my team?
Why do you think that if I don't solve your puzzle I will die in less than 3 months?
What has morality got to do with this thread?
When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?

 

[Lama]

Chroot,

The logical reasoning method that standing in the basis of the current language of mathematics is not evil, it is based on the idea of the scientific method of the last 400 years, that clearly separated between our technological skills (only matter, energy and quantity are taking in account) and our morality levels.

Please tell me what community of people gave us our abilities to destroy ourselves: the man in the street? the politicians?

No chroot, the scientific community of the last 200 years gave us these "toys"
and nothing prevent them from doing it, because their logical reasoning methods has no connections to their morality, and this is exactly the dangerous dichotomy that I talking about.

 

[fbsthreads]

if n is going to end L, then what system of mathematics was used to calculate that finite number, and can't we use that mathematical system if it works.

And if the current system doesn't work then we aren't going to die in three months and we don't need to invent a new system.

YAY, we win either way, the teams okay, we've overcome the problem using homegrown logic.

 

[Lama]

When you write 'morality', what do you have in mind?

Nereid, your question is for me like a cool breeze in the middle of a summer noone.

Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the humam race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the bilnd forces of nature .

 

[chroot]

So, we have knowledge of the atom which enables us to build nuclear weapons, and hence destroy ourselves. We have arrived at this knowledge by the last several hundred years of scientific inquiry. We're all in agreement so far.

Now, this knowledge was not "made" by the scientific community, it was discovered by them. You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons -- presumably this means that this alternative scientific process would not have led us to discover things about atoms.

So you seem to be advocating the crippling of science by using an alternative scientific method which would not allow us to discover things that could be used to build weapons. You seem to be missing the fundamental point that information cannot be evil. Scientists can learn how atoms work. With than knowledge, politicians can order the construction of nuclear bombs, threatening humanity -- or a doctor can order the construction of radiotherapy machines, allowing many people to survive cancer. Information is not inherently evil or good -- it is the application of that information that can be evil or good.

You seem to be advocating a system in which we stick our heads in the sand and discover nothing, because any knowledge could potentially be used to hasten our demise. Let's just make one thing clear here: you're not advocating some new mathematical formalism at all. You are trying to proselytize your anti-scientific world-view, couching your rhetoric inside some ill-formed pseuo-math to hide its true nature.

- Warren

 

[Lama]

Hi fbsthreads,

The idea is to develop such logical reasoning that will change the way we are thinkin' about Math and science, and will lead us to find reasonable methods which always avoid n of L.

 

[Lama]

You seem to think that if we used some kind of different scientific process, then we would not be able to build nuclear weapons.

Nothing, but our morality level, can prevent from us to build an atomic weapon.

What I am suggesting will not prevent from us to discover any new powerful thing.

The deep change that I am talking about is to use this powerful language of mathematics in such a way that any new student who learn it will use a built in methods that develop both his morality level and his technical skills in such a way that will give him the strategic insight not to use his power to develop destructive things from one hand , and to take care about life on the other hand.

 

[chroot]

Can you provide even a simple example of how a student is supposed to develop his morality while learning his multiplication tables?

You seem to be very keen on this idea, but you do not seem capable of providing even a basic example of how it might actually work.

- Warren

 

[fbsthreads]

math doesn't lead to n of L.
the proof of that is that we still have L and have never experienced an utter n.

although i don't deny that n is possible, it will not be caused by logic, maths or science, it will be caused by an abuse of these things that maths does not govern.



on a different note, did you ever think that maths might be able to stop n as well as cause it?

p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.

 

[Lama]

p.s. shouldn't this post be in the morals forum or whatever it's called as it is about morals and ethics, not general physics.

Look how you separate so easily between what is called science methods and morality.

And this is exactly what the academic system sells to young students and they buy it.

So let me say it again, because of this artificial separation between our morality and out scientific methods that are learned by the academic system for the last 200 years, our world got all its mass destructive weapon.