Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

[PFanalog57]

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.

Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is immoral



Society evolves via the majority shareholders of opinion, it seems. We
may incorrectly assume that all people are almost exclusively
motivated by their own material self-interest. Yet the experiential
juxtaposition of objective and subjective realities, called the status
quo "of the people, for the people, and by the people" systematically
refutes the self-interest hypothesis to a large degree. It appears
that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and
reciprocity.

Let there be a decision process in which one of two alternatives must
be chosen.

Group members may differ in their valuations of the alternatives, yet
must prefer some alternative to disagreement[game theoretically
speaking]. The process will be distinguished by three features:
private information regarding valuations, varying intensities in the
preference for one out-come over the other, and the option to declare
neutrality in order to avoid disagreement.

Variants on a "tyranny of the majority", will always be an equilibrium
in which the majority is all the more aggressive in pushing its
alternative, thus using the metaphorical "strong arm" to enforce their
will, via both numbers and voice. The metaphorical "might makes right"
scenario. Likewise, under very general conditions, an aggressive
minority equilibrium inevitably makes its appearance, provided that
the group is large enough. This equilibrium displays a "tyranny of the
minority": Yes, it is always true that the increased aggression of the
minority more than compensates for its smaller number, leading to the
minority outcome being implemented with larger probability than the
majority alternative.

 

[sparkster]

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

Oh, I know. I was just being sarcastic.

 

[Nereid]

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.

You don't need modern day toys like H-bombs to destroy 'ourselves'; the Mongols a thousand years ago did a pretty thorough job of destroying an alarmingly large number of 'us' with just swords. Too, some very nasty poisons have been known for thousands of years, along with cheap and effective ways of making and distributing them. The early white settlers in Australia used poisoned 'gifts' to clear the land of the native aborigines. And the list goes on.

So by extension, any use of science and technology (irrespective of how ill-formed the understanding of it is) is immoral? Or is it the intention?

 

[Zorodius]

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.

You'll be disappointed to realize that large-scale loss of human life to war predates the invention of modern weaponry.

 

[Lama]

Chroot,


The logical reasoning that I am talking about it is the included-middle reasoning, which is based on our abilities to develop deep interactions between abstract or non-abstract elements in such ways that they will not destroy each other during their interactions.


This kind of reasoning, when combined with our own cognition abilities to develop Math as part of the research itself, can lead us to develop a new kind of language of Mathematics which is deeply connected to our morality level.

And as I wrote to Nereid, Morality for me is the finest logical reasoning system that the human race can have, that gives it its ability to survive the blind forces of nature.

 

[Nereid]

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 bilnd forces of nature .

That's nice. How does morality save 'the humam race' from the next KT asteroid? (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm assuming that you would agree that the KT asteroid is a very good example of 'bilnd forces of nature' - do you?

BTW, how about answers to my other questions?

 

[Lama]

Knowledge must continue to increase. Any attempt to stop the increase of knowledge is immoral

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

 

[Nereid]

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.

Do you know how the Nobel prize came into being? If you don't, please spend some time researching it.

A sharp knife is a very good tool for slaughtering chickens and pigs; efficient slaughter helps keep the cost of animal protein down. A sharp knife is also a very good weapon for killing people.

Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite (which has a large number of positive applications to increasing the health and comfort of humans) or sharp knives?

 

[Nereid]

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.

In principle I agree with this; in practice, I think readers of the relevant philosophy sections would be somewhat less than happy to have this dropped in their laps.

 

[Lama]

That's nice. How does morality save 'the human race' from the next KT asteroid?

Our morality first will save us from the blind forces which existing within us, and can be seen from time to time during our wars.

And the next global war will be our last war.

So this is the time to take the technologies which we developed during the wars between us, and real put our efforts in order to develop technologies that will save our planet from KT asteroid.

In short, the days of our wars between us must be changed by our morality level, and develop our technology in order to protect ourselves from the blind forces of nature.

 

[Nereid]

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

The applications to which new scientific knowledge can be put are largely unknown (and to some extent unknowable) at the time of their discovery, how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed?

In the US, in September 2001, several thousand people died when commercial airliners were deliberately flown into two large commercial buildings in New York. A great many of the deaths were the result of a combination of causes, including building design, building construction, building maintenance; lots of kerosene, and so on. No engineer involved in the design of the buildings or the aircraft had intended their creations to be used to kill thousands of people (indeed, the building designers had considered the possibility of a commercial airliner crashing into their building), yet their creations were used for just such a purpose.

Shouldn't your new morality also extend to users?

 

[Lama]

Please explain how your new morality would prevent the development of dynamite

Again, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

 

[Hurkyl]

Besides, the philosophy forum has been suggested to Lama before, and he preferred TD.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

And why do you think that has anything to do with mathematics?

 

[Lama]

how could a new morality ensure that only positive applications were subsequently developed

Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.

This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.

 

[Nereid]

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.

And

Again, how is talking about preventing of using explosive matters?

I am talking about preventing of using explosive matters in such a way that will destroy life forms on our planet.

And

Our morality level is our only guaranty to survive power that can be discovered by us in the future, and this morality level has to be developed all the time if we want to survive these discoveries.

This is a very long story if we keep continue to develop our morality, and it can be easily a short story if our morality level is neglected by us during our technological development.

Lama, you seem to be inconsistent here, but perhaps it's just my understanding.

The ability of Homo sap. to slaughter large numbers of humans and other large animals has been around for at least 30,000 years - clubs and fire will do the trick, no need even for stone spears and knives. Although somewhat controversial, the disappearance of the megafauna in both Australia and the Americas may be laid at the feet of the early human invaders.

Your thesis seems to be, on the one hand, that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the other that new technologies may be applied to making better means of mass destruction (so we need a new morality); on the one foot, new tools may be used for mass killing (so we need a new morality) ... but that the most critical place a new morality is needed is wrt new scientific discoveries (through the automatic inclusion of this fairy dust into the scientific method itself). But we all know that you don't need to be a scientist to give the order to launch 10,000 ICBMs (or to order your army armed with swords to slaughter every man, woman and child in the city), so how would a different way of doing science stop thoughts of mass murder from forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?

Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.

 

[chroot]

Another part that I don't follow is why a reformulation of logic will lead to this magic new morality.

I whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front. Since this hasn't been fruitful, and Lama continues to post virtually the same things as he always has, I assumed there must be some ulterior motive. I'm very interested, as you seem to be, to see what his motives really are in posting his mathematical theories here for years on end. Obviously, the central reason is some sort of anti-scientific moral issue for him, and he sees mathematics as a vehicle. Why? I don't know.

- Warren

 

[PFanalog57]

How is talking about avoiding knowledge from increasing.

On the contrary, I am talking about developing better methods which will give us the abilities to deal with the power of our discoveries and the knowledge that we get from these discoveries, in such a way that will save us from the blind forces of our discoveries.

You are talking about the nature of the mind, not physics

According to Freud, the id is the seat of our aggressive instincts.

The ego mediates between aggressive instincts of the id and demands of the superego; it uses defense mechanisms to ward off subconsciousanxiety.

The superego represents conscience and the demands of society; it follows a set of learned and "internalized" moral codes.

A person does not change their basic nature via the acquisition of more knowledge...

Or can they?

 

[Lama]

that new scientific discoveries may lead to better means

When I am talking about scientific discoveries, I am not talking only about new physical quantified phenomena and technological methods to use it.

I am also talking about the education process that will be an inherent part of the scientific framework, which takes in account the power of the language itself on the human mind and discover by using this power the most intimate and internal levels of the power of constructive life within each one of us.

This is the supreme responsibility of the scientific method, to use its power to support and save life phenomena, by using the best methods that can be found and developed by us.

Again, there is no Math without Mathematicians, there is no science without scientists, and there is no life without leaving creatures, simple as that.

We have no choice but to do the best we can in order to save and support life on this planet, because in this case, after we got the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot speak anymore on arrows or knives, because arrows or knives or not going to destroy most or all of us not today and not tomorrow.

We are no longer waking on a sidewalk but on a tight rope high above ground, and we have to use our best methods to not falling from this rope.

And more power means higher and thinner rope that we have to deal with, if we want to survive the blind power of our discoveries.

In short any powerful method always have its destructive and constructive sides, and we have no choices but to do the best we can in order to use it with open eyes, and nobody but us is responsible for this.

whole-heartedly agree. Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others have already gone around and around in circles with Lama on the mathematical front.

You cause yourself not to understand my work by looking on the Langauge of Mathematics only from the point of view of its powerful technical abilities which are based on the 0_XOR_1 reasoning, and this reasoning does the best it can to clearly and sharply separate its methods from any philosophical, moral or ethical researches.

Furthermore, the mathematicians congenital abilities are not taken as natural parts of 0_XOR_1 reasoning.

And the reason is very simple, 0_XOR_1 is an artificial reasoning that has nothing to do with real abstract or non-abstract HIGHLY complex systems.

On the contrary the included-middle reasoning is the right logical reasoning that can support both our technological and non-technological abstract or non-abstract aspects of life.

And why is that?

Because it is based on the most problematic situation that can exist, which is: To find how opposites interact at least without destroying each other and at most to develop higher and deeper levels of interactions between HIGHLY complex phenomena.

Matt grime, HallsOfIvy, Hurkyl, and others...

Don't you have your own original voice, why do you need a group of people around you in order to air your view?

A person does not change their basic nature via the acquisition of more knowledge...

Or can they?

If we are using ! sign right from the beginning about this subject, then we are with our own hands fixed our destiny about this subject.

So I think that your "or can they?" question is the right answer to any defeatist attitude about this subject.

 

[Lama]

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.

 

[CrankFan]

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

 

[PFanalog57]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

@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]

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.

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).

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

Please give a detailed example.

 

[JasonRox]

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]

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]

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

To understand better my point of view please look at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=283514&postcount=1

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=284289&postcount=46

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285864&postcount=79

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286290&postcount=89

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286320&postcount=92

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286324&postcount=94

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286342&postcount=97

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286349&postcount=100

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286367&postcount=105

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286376&postcount=107

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286383&postcount=110

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286385&postcount=112

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286393&postcount=115

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=286575&postcount=119

 

[Locrian]

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

 

[Nereid]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hah, good stuff.

 

[CrankFan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

A post for Nereid.

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.

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]

A post for fbsthreads.

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]

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?