Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, and this most certainly doesn't apply to an atom (or even a proton, for that matter). Look at the definition, and put it up against what I've been saying about quantum Uncertainty and fluidity of quark movement...
"A substance that does not flow perceptibly under moderate stress"...a proton (and, more Way LESS importantly, as the "Model for exemplary solidity" is the PROTON, NOT the quark! [/color] importantly, a quark) does flow perceptibly under moderate stress. Remember, at the quantum level there are no real "particles" but "wavicles" which behave both as particles and as waves.
"has a definite capacity for resisting forces which tend to deform it"...surely you're not going to say that the collapse of the wave-function of a fundamental particle, under rather minute stress (in quantum terms) still allows it to meet this criterion. Words in my mouth?, NO! I said PROTON! the above is proven FASLE in respect of Protons inasmuch as the energies required to "bust em up", But maybe you just don't know anything about that...[/color]
"and under ordinary conditions retains a definite size and shape"...size, maybe; but shape?! No way. Are you still talking about quarks? or Protons? in this statement, cause if your saying shape in a proton is changing over time, please PROVE IT![/color]
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
followed by;
Follow your own advise please.....because when (and now you warrant the offence as you are attempting to place words in my mouth, that come from you, NOT me!) an "Idiot" pretends to do someone elses's thinking for them, well what they really see is simply the inside of themselves...and BTW justify 'idiot'? the first quote does that, well...you do it to yourself...
P.S. You'll notice that the dictionary definition follows what I have been saying, and I notice you cannot prove otherwise, either...nothing more then a (very) poor loser, with the inclusion of the obviousness of the sadness that you don't seem to even be concerned in finding the answer, but more defending what you have been taught by "others"...how sad, and un-Scientific...
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...Originally posted by mentat
Watch the personal remarks, please. They're never warranted and were only produced ever since the side-tracking (partially my own fault ) of the this thread...which is why Mumeishi would be asking us to "move on".
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
EDIT P.S. The reference to "Flow perceptibly" is a distinguishement from "fluidity" which is not to be confused with 'deformation' from impact(s)...even a Quark Does not "flow" as a "fluid" more likened to a gel...sticky...
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A small piece of advice, please direct your remarks at the person initiating the event, maybe you hadn't noticed (as per friendship) but it is mumeishe's "ridcule" that started this, your remark about "what has age to do with it" didn't help either, but does tell me what you do know about it...(by your hand)...
Originally posted by Mentat
Mumeishi didn't initiate the insults, and my opinion on that is not biased, but based on having looked back to make sure...he only said that we should move on. And what I would really like to know (possible the Mentors too) is how he kept it from registering the EDIT!...cause if you look at my posting, just below his "Lets move on", you will see that I had Captured his Ridicule of me (Insult) so his having edited his post "Sans notation", well really suspicious, don't you think? nevermind I can no longer trust him for anything he types on these pages unless I keep copies of every single thing, OYE he ain't worth it![/color]
EDIT: Oooops, my mistake he deleted the insulting one, I got it now...[/color]
And what does my comment about age have to do with it? I didn't insult you. In fact, I could have been (though I wasn't) insulted by the implication, on your part, What part, the part where I apologised to you?[/color] that I must be less intelligent than you simply because I'm younger than you. Insecure? why don't you try reality, nothing to do with intelligence, But with "KNOWLEDGE" as that is a time dependant aquisitional 'thing', so age, does make a (for your sake I put "potential") difference.[/color]
Indeed, an older person has had more opportunity to become wise, Start back at "knowledgable" please...wisdom's another thing altogether)[/color] but that just makes it all the more inexcusable that so many haven't. It doesn't mean that a younger person has had no opportunity to gain wisdom, and it doesn't mean that they haven't taken better advantage of this opportunity than someone thrice their age.
Originally found at http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/pdk.html" site..
Because the exchanged particle is so heavy, the proton lifetime predicted by grand unification models is extremely long... about 20 orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe!
No events have been observed and a limit on the lifetime has been set to be over 10^(33) years
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
For you to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that I have had in my lifetime, you would need live 47 years. Just because you can "take better advantage then someone thrice their age" (IF that's true) doesn't mean you have caught up to them, even if you went at twice my pace, you would still be behind me, I have had 47 "opportunity years", if you were working at twice my pace you would have had 30, three times my pace and you are still short at 45...get it?
You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that, after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I wasn't referring to myself when I said the "take better advantage than someone thrice their age" comment. Ahem, any reference to age, once introduced as it has been in this conversation, which (BTW) is about to cease, is taken as "in reference to the conversations direction". (that a Normal practise for most people) I would have thought you 'capable enough' to recognize thusly, and NOT try to use debating tactics with me, again, but...[/color]
Secondly, you have not taken advantage of every chance to gain more knowledge that you've been presented with in your life, and thus your age is not a good marker for how hard I have to work to catch up with you. It was an e-x-a-m-p-l-e to make the point that, (BY YOUR ADMMISSION) you hadn't understood, or so you said...[/color]
Lastly, wisdom is indeed different than knowledge, but most people think that both come with age, so I (Erroneously, as they are not interchangable, one is a product of the other...maybe!)[/color] use them interchangeably in this context. I know that knowledge is an aquisitional thing, but if you spend very little time reading (and I'm not saying you do) for 47 years, but just let the time pass you by, while I'm learning more and more each day (this part is true), then I will indeed surpass you in knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that. If you did take advantage of every opportunity to gain knowledge throughout your lifetime (or even went at the same pace that I've been going at) then you'd be far beyond me...but have you really worked that hard? If you have, I commend you. If you haven't, then I request that you not comment on my age.
Well, I would agree with the first part, "wrong at any age" is definitely real, as there is no 'age' that brings 'perfection' of action/activity/speach...but not with the last line, as that ends up as 'not educational' nor 'good modelling', but usually simply an indication of someone with either, 'no answer', or 'not the patience' to help the other to see simply their viewpoint.Originally posted by Canute
Well I'm older still, and my opinion is that it's possible to be wrong at any age, one just become able to do it with better arguments as time goes on, and in emergencies can always resort to being patronising.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You can never, in the entirety of your lifetime, surpass the 'minutia' of the "time of my life" as the "time of your life" must exceed the "time of my life" to accomplish that
...after that, we begin into the realms of "Quality of knowledge" and importantly "Application(s) of Knowledge"...Oh yes, please try to remain true to your 'stated form', as you are the one who had told me he made "no conclusions" right?? cause I've seen a few since then.
The older person always "knows more" as they have been alive longer, after that 'quality' counts! Quality of the 'Knowing' that they acquire in simply being alive.
As for your last "two" lines, I don't know, neither do you, my comment on your age, if yourecall, was in the acceptance and the offering of apologies, and my acknowledgment (honesty) that I could recognize that this is an "unfairness", me debating, with you because of My Age, the rest, your defensiveness, well get over it mentat ( ) there are lots of people out there, and NO ONE has an absolute corner on the market for "Smarts".
Originally posted by Mentat
My point is that I don't need to exceed the amount of your lifetime in order to exceed the amount of your knowledge.
O.K...And my point is that time is going to prove you wrong...Who's opinion do you think is more qualified? (And why?...then again, don' respond, please!)[/color]
It's called a Working Assumption. I wouldn't post it if I didn't want you to try and prove it wrong. I'm open to any logical debate on the matter, but that's not what I'm getting from you. Possibly? because you are not presenting it as an "open assumption" but rather as a conclusion...my opinion...[/color]
Even if that person is the oldest man alive. I'm not trying to be defensive, I'm trying to get you to stop making statements about people's ages since this can only serve to both offend the younger (Why? are you offended by the truth? by your own age? what is off-end(ing) you?) [/color] person and weaken your stance This is contrary to what you have written below, as this is not supposed to be about stances, but 'facts of Science' and "The description that approximates the truth of those scientific observations" the best, it is NOT 'won' by "Stance" it is learned in exchange...[/color] (by making you seem arrogant, and seem like you think you are justified in being arrogant because you're older).
I'm sorry if it bothers you Not in the least![/color] for me to disagree with you, but that's the purpose of the forum: logical debate (not "I state what I think and you state what you think; we all make funny remarks about each other's views and move on"). Is that what your exclusively doing??[/color]
Originally posted par moi
(SNIP)[/color]...which (BTW) is about to cease...(SNoP)[/color]
You see, if the Mind ß the Set of all things that exist, then how can the Mind itself exist at all?
The holographic paradigm also has implications for so called hard sciences, like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.
Originally posted by Canute
I'd say you've got something there. The Cosmos is also the set of all sets. I wonder if that's a coincidence. They're the only two things whose existence is so self-referential that it doesn't seem to be logical.
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
there is an article on a different kind of TOE in which mathematical existence is postulated (or conjectured) to be physical existence. we may be some mathematical component called self aware structures in a larger structure. the set of all sets, which i repeat can exist in fuzzy logic, seems way more adequate than necessary to capture not only our universe but a multiverse where each universe operates differently.
the thing about self-referentialism is interesting.
let x be a single word.
define D recursively:
D(x,1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of x.
for n>0, D(x,n+1) is the set of all words in all possible definitions of all words in D(x,n).
if {x}∩D(x,1)!=Ø then the definition is self-referential and i'll bet most would consider it useless.
i also bet that for all x, there is an n such that {x}∩D(x,n)!=Ø so all words are, in that case, defined somewhat self-referentially.
i know it's a stretch, but i bet there are a few words that "generate" all other words along with the rules of grammar. i wonder if those generators would be synonyms and how many there are.
anyway, i suppose this article has to do with spooky action at a distance; it's about the hologramic theory of the universe:
http://www.water-consciousness.com/must/must_article33.htm
i know this is a stretch, but...
this sounds a lot like solipsism to me, though solipsism i think postulates that there is only one consciousness. I've kind of melded the two into the suspician that it is just one consciousness all connected though there appears to be separation analogous to the perceived separation between islands in the ocean: under the "awareness barrier" (ie the water), it's all connected.
what would be a good name for this island? phoenix.
what would be a good name for the whole consciousness, if it is all connected? hmmm... i think people have been giving it names for a while now; take your pick.
(snoop)It [the cosmos] doesn't exist as its own entity(crop)
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what does exist as its own entity and how do you know?
how do you know the cosmos doesn't exist as its own entity?
(and what I'm mainly getting at is...) how do you know the mind exists as its own entity while the cosmos does not, if that is your position?
using russell's theorem in two-valued logic, the set of all sets doesn't exist as its own entity either; so i can see the similarity, at least superficially, between your version of the "not as its own entity" cosmos and the universal set. anyway, though, if the universe is not black and white, a universal set can exist which would appear to remove the achilles heel from solipsism and any attempt to argue with the "paradox" to prove the cosmos can't exist if it is likened to the universal set.
when the facts contradict the axioms, change the axioms.
adding a third truth value is sufficient to resolve russell's paradox and poof, the universal set could be the universe or the mind.
by the way, i think some easterners, perhaps buddhists, have a third answer other than yes/no or true/false. mu. this could be viewed as the third truth value and as far as i can tell it removes several paradoxes. the sacrafice is that not all statements are either true or false. but that seems to gel with the "real world" anyway, doesn't it?
why not?Because no entity can contain itself and I equated "cosmos" with "Universe" which is semantically equal to "everything"...ergo, it would have to contatin itself.
maybe you're an agnostolipsist then? there's someone who posts in "what's the proof that god exists" whose name starts with mu who has decided that there must be a default position when there isn't evidence either way having to do with which explanation is simpler and other things. I'm of the mind that there is no default. there's no question that polyism (aka, eg, science) is more useful than solipsism but that, to me, doesn't prove its correctness in the grand scheme of things; it just proves it's more useful. similarly, an auto repair man doesn't need to know the theory of everything to fix the car whose forces are predicted by but that doesn't mean a more satisfying under-picture of reality isn't closer to the truth.Ah, and that's the kicker. There are no facts that support the Solipsistic paradigm. There are just no facts that contradict it either.
in russel's theorem, you have a set S such that S ∈ S if and only if S ! ∈ S. if S ∈ S is true or false, the if and only if is false. this false was the consequent of the premise, "there is a set of all sets." the theorem proves that no set can exist.What is the third truth value, and how does it resolve russell's paradox?
what does T mean? what does F mean? mu is just the truth value that isn't true or false. one could also take it to mean maybe (undecidable with given premises) and one could also take it, in response to a question, as "that's an absurd question to my language that it can't answer definitively."But, what does "mu" mean?
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
why not?
what does T mean? what does F mean?
mu is just the truth value that isn't true or false. one could also take it to mean maybe (undecidable with given premises)
and one could also take it, in response to a question, as "that's an absurd question to my language that it can't answer definitively."
i know what you're dealing with with this perspective. i know it's hard to intellectualize an entity that is self-containing and whose all definitions are self-referential and seemingly useless. what we're talking about can't really be defined exactly except as perhaps the universal set. there are two analogies that aren't perfect that might help you imagine an entity that contains itself:Since an entity can be said to contain many things, but never itself...I don't understand how you could work it so that an entity contained itself. A jar (fore example) may contain water or anything else you wish to put in it, but you could never put it inside itself, could you?
simple. as you said, false means not T. well, mu means not T and not F. you can have a mu2 if you want, though i don't think you need it for russell, where mu2 is not T and not F and not mu. it doesn't just mean "T is not the case," it also means "F is not the case." all I'm requiring you to accept for proof, which is actually by definition not a proof because it uses mu, is the adoption of a possibility besides true and false. koans explain exactly why we need a third truth value and so do statements like "i always lie" and "jennifer love hewitt is beautiful," although i find that to be a weak example. actually, fuzzy logicians use infinitely many truth values modeled after the [0,1] interval where 0=F, 0.5=mu, and 1=T, though I'm fairly sure they're not using it to answer koans or solve (russell's) paradox; I've heard it useful for elevator and brake design.T means that the proposition is true...that it should be held as correct until disproven. False means that it is not T. What can "mu" mean? If "mu" doesn't mean T, then it means that "T is not the case" (right?) and must thus be equal to F, according to my definitions thereof.
perhaps some undecidable statements are equivalent to each other. in my investigation of the universal set, i found that the statement U equals the power set of U is equivalent to "russell's paradox is a nontautology."If something is undecidable then it is true "if and only if" some other proposition, isn't it?
But something that is assigned a truth value is answered definitively. If you assign the "mu" truth value, then you've definitely answered it, "mu".
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i know what you're dealing with with this perspective. i know it's hard to intellectualize an entity that is self-containing and whose all definitions are self-referential and seemingly useless. what we're talking about can't really be defined exactly except as perhaps the universal set. there are two analogies that aren't perfect that might help you imagine an entity that contains itself:
1. a set with nonstrict inclusion. a set is always a subset of itself though NOT a proper one. there are no sets i know of that are proper subsets of themselves.
simple. as you said, false means not T. well, mu means not T and not F.
in truth, there is only truth. there is no such thing as false. everything that isn't true is just true to a lesser extent, so to speak. i can't really formulate this correctly. I'm trying to get a transcendence of opposites here. like hot and cold. cold is really just absence of heat. same with true and false.
i agree with that. i must have made a false statement ;) if it seemed otherwise. from that perspective, is anything undecidable? you're at least deciding it's undecidable. i love little logic circuits (aka paradoxes) like that. i think the word paradox means "language is inadequte."
we are all limbs on the same tree. that tree can have any name you want. some popular and less popular names are:
God
consciousness
all that is
christ consciouenss
the tree of life
the tree of knowledge
the universe
the multverse
Reality
objective reality
the universal set
the Self
the universal mind
the mind
different branches but all on the same tree. this is not a new idea at all. the name of this branch is phoenix. one tree. unity.
i took "contain" to mean a subset of and you took it to mean is an element of. well, U is an element of U and a subset of U and i know of no other such sets with this property. remember that non-U intuition just can't apply to U. every set is a subset of itself while few sets in some sense are elements of themselves. for example, for no ordinal or cardinal are they elements of themselves and that covers a lot of ground right there. if i were to pick a new symbol for the cardinal number of U, i'd like just aleph or omega or alephomega for it is the beginning and the end. (my website alephnull kinda translates to AO.)A set is always a subset of itself? How so? If there is set S, and we say that all of the solipsists in the world belong to that set, the set of all solipsists cannot belong to S can it? IOW, S does not belong to (since I can't get the symbols to work )S.
ill-2-valued-logic, yes. binary logic and the law of excluded middle of t xor f does not apply. check out the other thread on multi-valued logic for more info on this. it's in the logic section of this site, i think. the same question was raised there. there is a modified version of xor which stipulates that one formula cannot have two different truth values simultaneously. however, the way to assign truth values is general so in a sense, using two different equally consistent systems of assigning truth values that i call perspectives, they can have two different truth values simultanously. from the perspective of binary logic, the excluded middle is maintained. intuitively speaking, "phoenix is beautiful" is true from one perspective and not true from another perspective.Illogical. If F=notT then notT=F, it is commutative. Therefore, mu cannot equal "notT" without becoming equal to F. Right?
see one of my posts in the other thread i mentioned. i argued that all logic is not just reducible to binary, it is reducible to unitary:But sometimes there is a complete absence of truth, right? There can be an "absolute zero" of truth, can't there?
;)Yeah, I think paradoxes are really fun. You should read Raymond Smullyan's books. He's very big on paradoxes and coercive logic.
it's literally as deep as it gets. now that's not to say my ego is so big that i think i came up with something really deep. this is just a reflection of what I've realized while pondering the imponderables and reading about theism, buddhism, abrahamic religion, mathematics, psychology, and stuff like that. it's not at all new. organic posted the same thing about a tree a while ago and that's what inspired me to write it in that way.I'm one of the last people you usually ever hear saying this, but that's pretty deep.