|
|
Re: ALL PERMUTATIONS OF INFINITY
Posted:
May 28, 2012 9:27 PM
|
|
On May 29, 11:16 am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 29, 10:42=A0am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 29, 8:48=3DA0am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> > > > > netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > On 26 Mai, 18:02, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
> > > > > > > netzweltler <reinhard_fisc...@arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 24 Mai, 20:33, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Has there been found any application in this universe where
> > > > > > > > > t=
> > he
> > > > > > > > > a=3D
> > > > ct
> > > > > > > > > o=3D3D
> > > > > > f
> > > > > > > > > pretending infinity exists becomes useful?
>
> > > > > > > > I can display every natural number n as a line of slope n in
> > > > > > > > th=
> > e
> > > > > > > > coordinate system. w can be displayed as a vertical line
> > > > > > > > then. Does infinity exist thus?
>
> > > > > > > Nah. =3D3DA0The slope is the output of a process of dividing
> > > > > > > two measurements=3D3D
> > > > > > =3DA0-
> > > > > > > the rise divided by the run. =3D3DA0When the run becomes zero,
> > > > > > > th=
> > e
> > > > > > > proc=3D
> > > > ess
> > > > > > > ei=3D3D
> > > > > > ther
> > > > > > > becomes undefined, or never terminates (you get to pick).
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0=
> > No
> > > > > > > whe=3D
> > > > re
> > > > > > > doe=3D3D
> > > > > > s it
> > > > > > > become "infinity".
>
> > > > > > > We use the word "infinity" to mean just that - a process that
> > > > > > > nev=
> > er
> > > > > > > terminates. =3D3DA0These processes most certainly do exist.
> > > > > > > =3D3D=
> > A0An
> > > > > > > inf=3D
> > > > inite
> > > > > > > nu=3D3D
> > > > > > mber
> > > > > > > of objects, do not exist. =3D3DA0An infinite number of values
> > > > > > > out=
> > put
> > > > > > > by=3D
> > > > =A0one
> > > > > > > o=3D3D
> > > > > > f
> > > > > > > these processes will never exist. =3D3DA0You must be clear as
> > > > > > > to which =3D
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the=3D3D
> > > > > > se
> > > > > > > two things you are talking about - but often in mathematics,
> > > > > > > thes=
> > e
> > > > > > > tw=3D
> > > > o
> > > > > > > ve=3D3D
> > > > > > ry
> > > > > > > different things, are conflated with very odd results happening
> > > > > > > a=
> > s
> > > > > > > a result.
>
> > > > > > Which line does exist, which line doesn't? I guess we agree, that
> > > > > > t=
> > he
> > > > > > line of slope =3D3D3D 1 does exist, right? And the line of slope
> > > > > > =
> > =3D3D3D
> > > > > > 10=3D
> > > > ^100
> > > > > > does exist, right? If not all of the infinitely many lines do
> > > > > > exist=
> > ,
> > > > > > you need to define, which of these lines are the existing ones,
> > > > > > and which lines are the non-existing lines. That's math (not
> > > > > > about processes and time).
>
> > > > > Or more accurately, we should keep in mind that math is a game we
> > > > > pla=
> > y
> > > > > wi=3D
> > > > th
> > > > > language. =3DA0The game works something like this:
>
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 Start with a collection of language statements we will
> > > > > ca=
> > ll
> > > > > axiom=3D
> > > > s. =3DA0We
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 will pretend these statements are absolute truths and
> > > > > we =
> > will
> > > > > def=3D
> > > > ine
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 their meaning based on features we pick from the
> > > > > reality =
> > we
> > > > > exist=3D
> > > > =A0in.
>
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 Then add to the game, a set of rules for producing new
> > > > > statements=3D
> > > > =A0from
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 the statements already defined as truths in the
> > > > > language.
>
> > > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 Applies those rules over and over and see what language
> > > > > results.
>
> > > > > So when you ask "which line does exist", you are not asking about
> > > > > wha=
> > t
> > > > > exists in the real world, you are asking about what can be said to
> > > > > be tru=3D
> > > > th
> > > > > in this game. =3DA0And in the game, the words "does this line
> > > > > exist" =
> > can,
> > > > > depending on which rules you are playing the game with, be
> > > > > considered=
> > a
> > > > > question of truth, which translates to, "is this statement one of
> > > > > the statements we could produce as a statement we call true in the
> > > > > game?"
>
> > > > > My issues all relate to how some people doing math seem to get
> > > > > confus=
> > ed
> > > > > b=3D
> > > > y
> > > > > the fact that they are playing a game, and try to use the game of
> > > > > mat=
> > h,
> > > > > t=3D
> > > > o
> > > > > make statements about reality, that are at times, in my opinion,
> > > > > totally unjustified. =3DA0Much of the game does apply to reality,
> > > > > but there are pla=3D
> > > > ces,
> > > > > where it leaves reality and then produces very odd results, that
> > > > > have no application to reality outside the playing of the game.
> > > > > =3DA0I wou=
> > ld
> > > > > think people should care more about which parts of the game align
> > > > > wit=
> > h
> > > > > reality, and which leave reality behind, but they don't really seem
> > > > > t=
> > o
> > > > > care.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Curt Welch =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > > =3DA=
> > 0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > > =3D
> > > > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0http://CurtWelch.Com/
> > > > > c...@kcwc.com =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > > =
> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > > =3DA0=3D
> > > > =A0=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0http://NewsReader.Com/
>
> > > > Yes but this is Godel's, Turing's and Zermelo's fault.
>
> > > > Godel's ABSOLUTE PROOF Predicate is just
>
> > > > PRV(THEOREM) <-> THEOREM v PRV(A)^PRV(B)^(A^B->THEOREM)
>
> > > > ----
>
> > > > Turing's Halt Function cannot prove any function halts, but it can
> > > > still prove any OTHER function Halts!
>
> > > > What idiot puts the Test Harness inside the Test Software
>
> > > > A simple program halting deciding paradox
> > > > 10 if Halt() Goto 10
> > > > 20 Pint "Finished!"
>
> > > > program 1
> > > > 10 Print "Finished!"
>
> > > > program 2
> > > > 10 if Halt(program1) Then Print "p1 halts!"
>
> > > > Now it works!
>
> > > > ----
>
> > > > ZFC is just a PROVABLE Set Theory and nothing to do with LOGIC where
> > > > ofcourse Finite Theories can be examined.
>
> > > > NST
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | P(x,Y) }
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | x ~e x } --> CONTRADICTION
>
> > > > ZFC
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | O(x,Y) ^ x e Z }
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | x ~e x ^ x e Z } --> WILL NOT STRATIFY SINCE ~E(Z)
>
> > > > APS
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | P{x,Y) } <-> ~Prv(~E(Y) Y =3D3D P(x,Y) }
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | x ~e x } <-> ~Prv(~E(Y) xeY <-> x~ex )
>
> > > > LOGIC
> > > > E(Y) Y =3D3D { x | P{x,Y) } <-> Prv(E(Y) Y =3D3D P(x,Y) }
>
> > > > -----
>
> > > > You seem to swap between 'some things may be absolute' and 'some
> > > > things aren't'
>
> > > > with "You are all wrong since there is just probability and no
> > > > absolutes'.
>
> > > > You do know QUANTUM PROBABLE Projected Events REDUCE to one or the
> > > > other don't you?
>
> > > Not really important.
>
> > > > Or do you think we're all in a giant parallel recurring options
> > > > Universe where we either observed Schrodingers Cat or we didn't?
>
> > > :)
>
> > > Even if in theory the quantum events reduce to absolute states, how is
> > > th=
> > at
> > > fact translated into say, lip motions? =A0How would an absolute fact
> > > abou=
> > t a
> > > quantum event emerge from our lips with zero odds of transmission error
> > > between the quantum state and the lips? =A0How would it be be
> > > transmitted=
> > as
> > > an absolute fact into a Usenet message with zero odds of a transmission
> > > error?
>
> > > If it can't get into a Usenet message with zero odds of error, then
> > > what are the odds that everything you think you know about quantum
> > > mechanics being a transmission error? =A0All your knowledge of quantum
> > > mechanics ha=
> > s to
> > > be transmitted to you did it not? =A0It did not arrive in you by a zero
> > > transmission error act of God did it?
>
> > > All your knowledge about everything you think you know, is the result
> > > of information being transmitted to your brain through the firing of
> > > noisy nerve cells. =A0Is there anything which arrived in your brain
> > > which we ca=
> > n
> > > claim remains to be an absolute fact that had zero odds of a
> > > transmission or processing error?
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > > Everything we think we know, has some non-zero chance of being wrong
> > > due =
> > to
> > > transmission, or processing errors.
>
> > > Our human knowledge exists as an emergent property of a macro level
> > > syste=
> > m
> > > (aka the atoms of our brain and body etc.). =A0Even if there were
> > > absolut=
> > e
> > > truths at the quantum level in this universe, there is no way in this
> > > universe (that I'm aware of), to create noise-free transmission from
> > > the quantum level to the macro level. =A0What we live with instead, is
> > > techni=
> > ques
> > > for reducing the odds of transmission error to such low levels, that we
> > > c=
> > an
> > > just ignore the fact that the odds are non-zero.
>
> > > But just because we have used techniques to reduce the transmission and
> > > measurement errors to low levels so that we can pretend they are
> > > absolute facts, does not actually make them absolute facts.
>
> > Ok there is a TINY probability that all of the air molecules in the
> > room will suddenly move all to one side and suck you inside out into
> > the newly formed vacuum. these are the kind of odds you are
> > imagining.
>
> Yes, EXACTLY! Did I say the odds were greater than 10^-(10^1000) anywhere?
> No, I just said they were non-zero.
>
> > But absolute facts are not equivalent to a description of absolute
> > facts.
>
> So, you think facts can exist in your brain beyond the power of your brain
> to receive error free information?
>
> You seem to believe your "consciousness" has powers of perception that
> exceed the ability of the physical world to transmit and process
> information. Where do you suspect your special powers come from?
>
> It's fun talking to people about this, because hyper rational people are so
> addicted to the idea of absolute facts existing that they act just like a
> religious fanatic on subjects of God or creation. Their bias is so strong
> they can't see the obvious truth in front of them.
>
> Hyper rational people use absolute truths and logic being as the foundation
> of their reality in the same way a religions person uses God as the
matdumi wrote:>
> Observation:The tautology is a surphase structure of depth structure
> and this is the categorico-disjunctive infference.For exemple
> av-a is the tautology.a/cd is
> cdv-cv-d and this is
> (-cv-d)c->-d.
This is where the Tautology Modus Ponens is derived.
(c ->D) ^ c -> D
FACT1 implies FACT2 and FACT1 holds
ergo FACT2
> foundation of their reality. If you try to pull their foundation out from
> under them, they can't cope, so they just deny what you show them.
>
> There is a difference between the beliefs stored in our brain being
> absolute truths, and us just acting AS IF they were absolute truths. We
> only get to do the second. The first does not exist for us.
>
> A hyper rational person such as yourself, will work very hard to test and
> verify and cross verify everything your believe is a fundamentalism truth.
> You will have a more highly tested, and verified set of beliefs than most
> of us. But yet, no matter how carefully you test them, they will never
> become absolute truths. That's just the reality of this cage we are forced
> to exist in.
>
Fine, no use splitting hairs dare the arguments recycle.
Certainly Godel's Proof and Halting Proof were considered unbreakable
for eternity.
You just seem to be missing the internal axiom "If a million people
call it a fish it's a fish"
Herc
--
E&OE
|
|
