|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ... "Painius" wrote in message ... Not an attack, John, just an observation... There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2. And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold." Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using "1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that "1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system. hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the comparison between binary and decimal -- 10 base2 = 2 base10 so 1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not. Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer and the human, as it were, both equations "hold." And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all, one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean is hard to miss. As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees. And this post of yours tells me why... I would argue that Bill (and maybe you to a certain extent) are completely ignoring the trees. You'll have to explain this to me, John. I can see where someone like you, who does not have any use for "forests" and who only focuses upon a tree or two can be said to be ignoring the forest. What i cannot see is how anyone who goes after the big picture, the "forest" if you will, can be said to be ignoring the "trees." The trees after all *are* the forest, n'est-ce pas? While Bill and i are saying, "John, you can't see the forest for the trees," *you* seem to be turning the classic words around and saying, "Painius, you and Bill can't see the trees for the forest." Personally, i think part of the problem is that we appear to be climbing different trees in the same forest. happy days and... starry starry nights! Painius |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote:
"John Zinni" wrote... in message ... "Painius" wrote in message ... Not an attack, John, just an observation... There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2. And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold." Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using "1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that "1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system. hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the comparison between binary and decimal -- 10 base2 = 2 base10 so 1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not. Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer and the human, as it were, both equations "hold." You'r thinking too traditionally like traditional mathematics you learn from primary school to like even some of university, you have to think as mathematics as the more generic form. The simplest is boolean logic, yes, but any other number system coming from that will give some extended expected results. For example. True/False: T and T = T T and F = F T OR F = T F OR F = F This is your basic logic right? actually this is a subset of a more generic logic, you see it when you study fuzzy. And is actually the MIN operation while OR is actually a MAX operation. One adds both sets together, the other finds commenalities between those set even at infinite scale. Think of the basic operations as the basic SET theory operations, A intersection B that is your basic AND operation. Now your Conjection is your basic OR operation, that constitutes to a MAX in universal logic, but an OR in boolean logic. When you think of it it makes sense, OR is usually more frequently 0 than AND for equally distributed random inputs. When you start analyzing stuff like "the universe", it can help to maby use the more generic operations than just saying "1 + 1 = 2" must hold. it should actually say "A intersect B = C" where C is the intersection of all elements. For those who don't know fuzzy, let me ask you this. Is the sky blue? you would say Yes. But then i could ask "Your windows XP taskbar is also blue?" you would say "Yes", but then i can ask "Which one is closer to a truer blue". You could make a curve going in "percents" if you will that says "I am 80% sure that the taskbar is blue, but the sky is only light blue so i will put 20%". In fuzzy logic, a paradox is simply marked as a value of 0.5 (is equally true and false), while in traditional logic you don't have a specified value for paradoxes, making them a bit hard to solve . You draw these sets and make your own set operations on them, use inference engines (I like Dr. Kiszka's inference engine, since he was my prof in this hehe) and voila you can have a fuzzy control system very easily. PLUS because of the nature of fuzzy logic, you can process the data in parallel. Meaning you don't need to know the answer of one operation to complete a dependant operation. This makes it ideal for systems that must process an enormous amount of data at a time. There is an error but with 1 month of light training in fuzzy controles, you will be able to do a 2 input 5 output control system quite easily, no transfer functions, nothing. Its pretty cool But it depends on the more generic form of mathematics, the "Abstract" mathematics if you will. Traditional logic is a special case of fuzzy logic. Anyway just thought you should know since you were finegraining the universe to one operation, why not finegrain further And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all, one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean is hard to miss. As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees. And this post of yours tells me why... I would argue that Bill (and maybe you to a certain extent) are completely ignoring the trees. You'll have to explain this to me, John. I can see where someone like you, who does not have any use for "forests" and who only focuses upon a tree or two can be said to be ignoring the forest. What i cannot see is how anyone who goes after the big picture, the "forest" if you will, can be said to be ignoring the "trees." The trees after all *are* the forest, n'est-ce pas? While Bill and i are saying, "John, you can't see the forest for the trees," *you* seem to be turning the classic words around and saying, "Painius, you and Bill can't see the trees for the forest." Personally, i think part of the problem is that we appear to be climbing different trees in the same forest. happy days and... starry starry nights! Painius |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Painius" wrote in message
... hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the comparison between binary and decimal -- 10 base2 = 2 base10 so 1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not. Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer and the human, as it were, both equations "hold." Is this supposed to be clever??? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"John Zinni" wrote...
in message ... "Painius" wrote in message ... hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the comparison between binary and decimal -- 10 base2 = 2 base10 so 1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not. Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer and the human, as it were, both equations "hold." Is this supposed to be clever??? Actually no... the opposite in fact. I saw it as "so obvious" that you simply must have missed it. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Stardust in the solar wind... all that is or ever been. all we see and all we sin... stardust in the solar wind. Paine Ellsworth |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
From Painius to JB:
Actually no... the opposite in fact. I saw it as "so obvious" that you simply must have missed it. JB is not too swift on interpreting the obvious.g oc |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:SK5gc.150408$oR5.71392@pd7tw3no... Painius wrote: "John Zinni" wrote... in message ... "Painius" wrote in message ... Not an attack, John, just an observation... There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2. And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold." Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using "1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that "1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system. hmm... well, there is always "1+1=10" in the binary system, so this is a clear case where 1+1=/=2. Until, of course, you make the comparison between binary and decimal -- 10 base2 = 2 base10 so 1+1 *does* equal 2 at the same time that it does not. Therefore, in the same self consistent system where translations are necessary between the digital and the analog, the computer and the human, as it were, both equations "hold." You'r thinking too traditionally like traditional mathematics you learn from primary school to like even some of university, you have to think as mathematics as the more generic form. The simplest is boolean logic, yes, but any other number system coming from that will give some extended expected results. For example. True/False: T and T = T T and F = F T OR F = T F OR F = F This is your basic logic right? actually this is a subset of a more generic logic, you see it when you study fuzzy. And is actually the MIN operation while OR is actually a MAX operation. One adds both sets together, the other finds commenalities between those set even at infinite scale. Think of the basic operations as the basic SET theory operations, A intersection B that is your basic AND operation. Now your Conjection is your basic OR operation, that constitutes to a MAX in universal logic, but an OR in boolean logic. When you think of it it makes sense, OR is usually more frequently 0 than AND for equally distributed random inputs. When you start analyzing stuff like "the universe", it can help to maby use the more generic operations than just saying "1 + 1 = 2" must hold. it should actually say "A intersect B = C" where C is the intersection of all elements. For those who don't know fuzzy, let me ask you this. Is the sky blue? you would say Yes. But then i could ask "Your windows XP taskbar is also blue?" you would say "Yes", but then i can ask "Which one is closer to a truer blue". You could make a curve going in "percents" if you will that says "I am 80% sure that the taskbar is blue, but the sky is only light blue so i will put 20%". In fuzzy logic, a paradox is simply marked as a value of 0.5 (is equally true and false), while in traditional logic you don't have a specified value for paradoxes, making them a bit hard to solve . You draw these sets and make your own set operations on them, use inference engines (I like Dr. Kiszka's inference engine, since he was my prof in this hehe) and voila you can have a fuzzy control system very easily. PLUS because of the nature of fuzzy logic, you can process the data in parallel. Meaning you don't need to know the answer of one operation to complete a dependant operation. This makes it ideal for systems that must process an enormous amount of data at a time. There is an error but with 1 month of light training in fuzzy controles, you will be able to do a 2 input 5 output control system quite easily, no transfer functions, nothing. Its pretty cool But it depends on the more generic form of mathematics, the "Abstract" mathematics if you will. Traditional logic is a special case of fuzzy logic. Anyway just thought you should know since you were finegraining the universe to one operation, why not finegrain further Interesting treatment, Yoyoma. I'm not sure we're ready to go further into "finegraining the universe" yet. Right now we are just trying to discover if there indeed *is* one operation, one universal force, that *drives* the "forces" that our science has observed up to today. Trying to determine if the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force are actually "forces," or if they just *appear* to be forces, and are in reality just "effects" of one universal force. Science today must be tempered by data received empirically, that is, by observation, experience and experiment. That's the beauty of the internet and most specifically UseNet science newsgroups. Dozens of minds getting together in a spirit of harmony g (yes, even flaming each other such as do Herb and David, Bill and John and others can have its moments where new and exciting ideas evolve) can and will have a dramatic effect on the direction in which science goes in the near future. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Freedom! free to see All the stars, all the cosmos For what it really is-- It is Free! Paine Ellsworth |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... Painius wrote: Sounds as if you tend to think of space as being made of something rather than being nothing. What do *you* think space is? To paraphrase a famous remark about time, it's what keeps everything from being in the same place. -- Odysseus LOL... must be this one -- Time exists so everything doesn't happen at once. Space exists so everything doesn't happen to you. Anonymous Following are some more of my favorites... Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. *That's* relativity. Einstein A seminar on Time Travel will be held two weeks ago. Life's Tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late. Benjamin Franklin The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time. Bertrand Russell I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating, and in fourteen days I lost two weeks. Joe E. Lewis and some more... http://www.chemistrycoach.com/time.htm happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Freedom! free to see All the stars, all the cosmos For what it really is-- It is Free! Paine Ellsworth |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:6nVfc.141154$Ig.64758@pd7tw2no... Painius wrote: "Odysseus" wrote... in message ... Painius wrote: Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms, and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be. So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?) g see what you get for boggling my meager mind? Even Einstein found the idea of "action at a distance" to be "spooky". Even more counterintuitive (to my at-least-as-meagre mind, at least) is the notion of space being quantized into 'bits of nothing' of finite size. "Space between a nucleus and electrons"? Your making it seem like an electron is a particle going around, its not. Its a wave guided by pilot waves, it has a most probable location, but its not guaranteed and is all probabilistic. Also you are talking about such a vast area, but remember in finite structure that the nucleus has an EM field, the electron has an EM field (because of its movement) and the elctrons with eachother have an EM field. Its not as "empty" as you think. Yoyoma, i'm not saying that i think space is "empty." I'm saying that i think space is "something" (instead of just "nothing"). An analogy might be like sharks swimming and revolving around a human skindiver in the sea. I'm asking what is it between the diver and the sharks? I realize that QM is not cut and dried and electrons are not believed to be like little billiard balls. A young learner such as yourself might have some fascinating ideas as to whether or not space is just a void nothing... or a very energetic something. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Planets, stars and nebulae Hold attention in the sky-- Lay in hay and squint your eye, Lose your youth in moaning sigh & find the truth in every lie! Paine Ellsworth |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote:
"Yoyoma_2" wrote... in message news:SK5gc.150408$oR5.71392@pd7tw3no... Painius wrote: "John Zinni" wrote... in message ... "Painius" wrote in message ... Interesting treatment, Yoyoma. I'm not sure we're ready to go further into "finegraining the universe" yet. Right now we are just trying to discover if there indeed *is* one operation, one universal force, that *drives* the "forces" that our science has observed up to today. Trying to determine if the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force are actually "forces," or if they just *appear* to be forces, and are in reality just "effects" of one universal force. I don't know, though it could seem plausible that there is one force that guides all other forces. In the first moments of the big bank there was one "superforce" then it was said that it split off into gravitation and "electroWeak", then merged out the four forces we know today. It could have been that the superforce was actually what you are trying to observe, and only the "Effects" could be seen as the universe matured. We recently discoverd the pilot wave fenomenae (actually recently is what 1930's? lol) and seeing them interract in the complex domain to form wave groups (like the "beats" you hear tuning a musical instrument). Those wave groups form the square root of the probability distribution of matter. You have to do |Y|² to get the complex out and finally be observable. Now thats interesting fenomenae, it directly affects our universe but is not within the real or observable domain. Are you suggesting that this superforce could be outside or inside spacetime? If you are suggesting that there are more forces outside spacetime that guide our universe i have to agree. Divine and religion aside, why is EM so strong and gravitation so weak? What if EM was weak and gravitation was strong, then everything would be roughly in the same place and we wouldn't have friction so we could go through anything. I don't know too much about nuclear physics but from what i understand gluons transmit the strong force, weakons transmits the weak. The weak and strong also act in very short distances while gravidation and EM can act at very large distances. Quite intreguing phenomenae. One could say that the superforce fine-grain effects are only observed at small distances? Also there are phonons to take care of in this treatments. They are the particles that transmit vibrational energy (before they though it was just sound, hense the word phone-on). Now you have here what, Protons, gravitrons, weakons gluons. If you can prove a force that is able to spontaneously create and radiate these particles, you got yourself a theory. Electric fields and Magnetism are alwaise perpendicular. Though it is just said i haven't seen any proof why that is so, i hear its just a "property of matter". The presence of a superforce could explain why it is perpendicular. Also the presence of a superforce could explain entropy, the tendency for the universe to get more and more random. Now entropy is measured in Joules/Kelvin or "m²kg/s²K" so its also a "property of matter" the way i see it. Convolute your phonons into that and you got yourself entropy. You could be going somewhere with this. But i theorize that this force would not be in the spacetime or "real" domain. Anyway before we can go into that we gotta prove that the gravitron exists. It should exist, it must exist. But if we the gravitron isn't transmitted like photons or gluons or weakons, then we got ourselves a problem. Science today must be tempered by data received empirically, that is, by observation, experience and experiment. That's the beauty of the internet and most specifically UseNet science newsgroups. Dozens of minds getting together in a spirit of harmony g (yes, even flaming each other such as do Herb and David, Bill and John and others can have its moments where new and exciting ideas evolve) can and will have a dramatic effect on the direction in which science goes in the near future. happy days and... starry starry nights! |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
From Painius:
Dozens of minds getting together in a spirit of harmony g (yes, even flaming each other.... can have its moments where new and exciting ideas evolve) can and will have a dramatic effect on the direction in which science goes in the near future. Heh. The adherents of the VSP need not worry. Their cherished para-dijjum is indelibly ensconced and will remain so for the foreseeable future. oc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 01:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |