False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[labelwench]

Why, thank you, PoPpA!


Re: Something from Nothing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a question:

Would the construction of the human brain, divided into hemispheres, be the crux of this puzzle?

We tend to use the hemispheres independently, depending on the nature of the challenge.

Some of these speculations would seem to require that the human brain work with both hemispheres fully engaged, to facilitate such an understanding.

Being able to harness the capabilities of our full mind at will, seems the challenge, after which much more will be evident.

Regards,

Labelwench
__________________
In the absence of light,
to discern black from white,
or define wrong from right,
and does it matter......

[SteveA]

Hi Steve, I'm not meaning to destroy your credibility as a fine human being and aspiring scientist, so let me assure you I enjoy your input, as it gives us all the ability to see the divergence between two major schools of study.

And I don't intend to do this to your credibility either - it's a learning experience.

I am coming from the old school of Triadic Pythagorean geometry. You seem to be founding your thinking more in the Dyadic Aristotelian traditions of syllogistic logic. These two logic schools have a long history of conflict dating back to the Assyrians and possibly before. Just for clarity's sake, here's a quick timeline and short discription of these differences:

I come from a variety of schools - engineering, art, digital logic, software, etc.

I know for a fact what can be done with serial deterministic logic - I've done that enough time and there's no use going over it again and no amount of convolution changes it. The only thing physical communication can do is the finite.

1.Monadic Logic__God informs man, i.e., superstition, myths, etc., etc....

2.Dyadic Logic__God & Devil informs man, i.e., reason & logic, true & false, right & wrong, subject & object, left & right, the excluded middle, etc., etc....
3.Triadic Logic__Man informs himself also, i.e., reason, logic and mean terms, the included middle__the fair, the common centers....
4.Poly-Adic Logics__The complex formal(quite often what you are using with your dyadic Aristotelian logic...), i.e., too formal to start with, First, Too complex_Unnecessary, for now__Later....
(please relate to analog's thread for further basics of here: http://www.toequest.com/forum/consci...y-science.html )

Yes, I've already run that path too - you're still counting integers. Nothing is going to get you off that.

Steve, may I inform you science has been measuring exact wavelengths of light for over a century, accurately, so please give real science its due...

And what percent tolerance is there to that accuracy?

See my point - that is not something that has been quantized and it remains statistical and unknown.

For example, what wavelength is red? It's unknown - there are ranges of values for which various probabilistic coefficients could be applied.

So let's say someone tries to be clever and define a wavelength of 632nm. Well is there anything in the universe that provably emits this specific, no. So it's just imagined to exist - it's not something that can be seen and proven to exist. Red exists, but not precisely a 632nm wavelength - you instead have wavelengths that are just statistical distributions with some probability of overlapping a range of wavelengths - the probability of a measured wavelength, if we apply infinitesimal Calculus and integrate the area under a finite impulse with 0 width is "precisely" (according to the version of real numbers that are used) 0.

We can once again redefine things and create reams and reams of books, but all these are just measuring the properties of statistical objects and none of them are tangible.

What's more tangible? The integrated energy under a curve, but notice that this is no longer a continuous function. It's a discrete - a point and it correlated with something that has been experienced.

I already mentioned Lene Hau's light experiment. I realize you are saying Dave's model can not be united into the scientific measurement school, but if you check your physics, chemistry and biology resources, you'll find that's exactly what they are presently achieving, and even in cognitive psychology's newest technologies studies of brain scanning imaging and measuring machines.

Sorry, once again, how does someone running an MRI scanner know that they're seeing a brain "out there" if they themself are only seeing from out of their own brain?

And similarly we can add layers and layers of mythology to this, but it never resolves the fundamental problem - if you make something reliant upon an unknown or paradox, then it will never be resolved - it's not that you can't create all sorts of beautiful models from it, but we can do that without trying to claim it represents an objective reality.

Sorry, but these are and have been measurable facts for some time, and especially at the high speed accelerators, and all real low temp. physics...

Well there are fundamentals in logic but again, these are discrete structures - they only appear to describe a continuum as people continually measure more and place those new measurements in a context of having been measured "between" prior measurements.

Then you abandon science__Na Da. You're the one always trying to use math__What gives here...?

Not at all, I'm just taking it seriously and observing, making deductions regarding these, testing these against samples etc.

The general difference is that I'm considering how I can bias those measurements myself - so this might been similar to watching how observations alter a state in quantum mechanics. There's no way to be passive - believing one is passively observing something just means they're trying to ignore the influence they have in the system.

Steve, any studied scientist of mathematical history is well aware of the problem of trying to count from the particular to the whole. It can be done for small concepts, but the larger the concepts' contents, the more impossible that becomes. And as an example_Just try counting all the mocrobes and insects activities of the world into a viable scientific model of sensible cause and effect__Na Da, it 'cain't be doo dooed...'

Well it can't be done if no precise definition is given over what these are. If you can define precisely what they are, then we can at least precisely count the space of possibilities.

That's why real scientists and mathematicians know statistical methods are necessary,

But they're just fooling themselves. The statistics are no more than the expections made from discrete samples - look what happened to the sphere - great idea - never happened.

What did reality do? Reality use tangible and discrete things to construct dynamic processes over time that only appear as spherical forms when you squint and try to believe it's a perfect sphere.

When you look closer, it never was a sphere.

and that's why they were invented. One just has to realize there're two main schools of statistical mechanics__the general more accurate, and the precise more in-accurate, at the large numbers__FACT...

It's a fact that it's inaccurate? I do agreed. (Notice that saying it can approach some arbitrary accuracy also means it can be considered arbitrarily inaccurate)

Every symbol they write represents a finite quantity and it would only be over an infinite time and space with an infinite quantity of diverse sensory perceptions that the potential to see even a single continuum would exist.

Steve, you are conflating measurement interpretation with actual experiment__THEY ARE DIFFERENT

The statements regarding finitude apply to either.

I you feel otherwise show me an infinite interpretation ... my comments are similarly finite as well and I can't express how infinity exists because it's diversity without bound.

The democratic agreement part is only true for one school of quantum thought. The other school of quantum thought works in actual physical experiments and does know what the probability waves are doing.

Yes, and we could say that any other number of intangible mystical forces are at work also.

Can you show me a probability wave? And if you believe they physically exist, then what's the probability that you can successfully measure one? etc.

The paradoxes and unknowns are there in many forms and they're just piled over into obscurity but they never left.

Feynman already said he no longer saw any need for the uncertainty principle after he received the noble prize for QED. Carver Mead, at Intel, has stated similar ideas. His book is available at Amazon...

So Feynman saw it too. That's not unusual at all. Einstein did as well toward the end of his career. Cantor tried, but failed etc.

We're left with a mish-mash that needs to be untangled.

Steve, I'm not trying to be mean, but much of the above must be realized to advance in the truths about math, physics and general theorizing of viable ideas...

Now I do recognize that using different terms and concepts is not particularly beneficial and so for science, there is a need to have precise definitions and they can't be rewritten willy nilly - the Big Bang should remain the idea of an expansion of space in non-physical dimensions and it's fine to leave it at X billion years ago etc.

These are all reference points that should not be erased, but there really does need to be a large simplification and it's important to toss out every idea that is intangible and unprovable to individuals. There needs be no democracy beyond what an individual themself can recognize to be the truth. Then upon this we can add the uncertainty over communication in an objective environment and "blur" things objectively if desired (but that should be added to "translate" things into classical mechanics and relativity etc.)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Re-Hash__S(c)hrek...

The only thing physical communication can do is the finite.

No-one's arguing that, as far as numbers Steve, but natural 'folk' 'logica utens' can theorize/communicate to infinity and back...

And what percent tolerance is there to that accuracy?

How accurate do you want? The width/length of a gamma wave__a radio wave__a micro wave...?

See my point - that is not something that has been quantized and it remains statistical and unknown.

What point__That you've shown us you don't believe in scientific measurement...?

For example, what wavelength is red?

It's according to what color red wave, on the spectrum you're referring to...No?

I(f) you feel otherwise show me an infinite interpretation...

Example__Count to the pseudo-finite end of an infinite series of any recurring numbers... Sorry sonny, that's an infinite concept. You're gonna be busy giving that real number, and not the rational substitute...

Can you show me a probability wave? And if you believe they physically exist, then what's the probability that you can successfully measure one? etc.

Steve, are you really that slow? Probability is the concept of measurement's ability to sum over ratios, not the reality of the word flying around in space. Most of your post is total non-sense. You better stop your bad habit of feeding the mice in the sun too much cheese__They 'gut' enough already__See...

The paradoxes and unknowns are there in many forms and they're just piled over into obscurity but they never left.

Beleive in non-sense all ya want, and try all ya want, ya can't create a physical paradox, thus__They 'dun't' existo...

We're left with a mish-mash that needs to be untangled.

Then untangle it, or ask how__Simple enough...!

The Big Bang should remain the idea of an expansion of space in non-physical dimensions and it's fine to leave it at X billion years ago etc.

Un-Proven__Un-Provable. I 'cain't' accept possible myths...

These are all reference points that should not be erased, but there really does need to be a large simplification and it's important to toss out every idea that is intangible and unprovable to individuals.

Exactly correct...

There needs be no democracy beyond what an individual themself can recognize to be the truth.

Yeah, as long as everyone would fully respect true scientific methods, in scientific threads, as say Greg laid them out in his posts__ and even imagine that, from the Persians, no less...http://www.toequest.com/forum/consci...html#post96707

Then upon this we can add the uncertainty over communication in an objective environment and "blur" things objectively if desired (but that should be added to "translate" things into classical mechanics and relativity etc.)

I'll take the classical__You can have the relativity__OK...?

[SteveA]

Re-Hash__S(c)hrek...

No-one's arguing that, as far as numbers Steve, but natural 'folk' 'logica utens' can theorize/communicate to infinity and back...

Ok, yes, in abstract intangible ways it has significance, but physically it's just a discrete symbol like any other number or variable.

Notice, for example, the conflict in the statement "Select a random integer from a uniform distribution of all integers"

Yet if I asked "Select a random number from a uniform distribution of real numbers between 0 and 1", hardly anyone would complain.

It's the belief that the infinite has been addressed in some concept that causes the problem.

How accurate do you want? The width/length of a gamma wave__a radio wave__a micro wave...?

I got the impression there was no error. You said:

may I inform you science has been measuring exact wavelengths of light for over a century

Did you mean to agree with me that it was only approximate the entire time?

(I'm just trying to point out a common mistake people make - statements are made in one context with one set of beliefs but then a context change occurs that invalidates that claim later, yet the assumption that the initial statement was still correct remains)

What would distinguish between an exact measurement of a wavelength or an approximate one in your opinion?

What point__That you've shown us you don't believe in scientific measurement...?

I'm just taking it to a new level of precision

It's according to what color red wave, on the spectrum you're referring to...No?

I went ahead and showed that this still doesn't help, and I gave an example for 632 nm (a common wavelength for gas lasers) - if we actually integrated the energy at 632nm only, there's no energy there, but instead the energy is spread over a bin.

The end result is that most all of this is bogus, the true information is contained in the information contained in the records of the samples and not in reconverting this into a gaussian approximation (which is still actually discrete, despite it being described as a continuous function - noone can actually perform continuous computations or do other infinite things)

I know it's not easy to see immediately because people tend to assume space is continuous, and it may fundamentally be but in communicable physical terms it is not.

Example__Count to the pseudo-finite end of an infinite series of any recurring numbers... Sorry sonny, that's an infinite concept. You're gonna be busy giving that real number, and not the rational substitute...

Yes, it's once again impossible to work with the infinite form and using a rational approximation detaches it from being logically constructed and every technique used to try to prove that say .999....=1 can also be used to prove they are not equal. I prefer to keep the two forms as independent and recognize that 1 is only a physical approximation to .999..., but logically they aren't identical.

Steve, are you really that slow? Probability is the concept of measurement's ability to sum over ratios,

So you agree that a probability wave is just a concept not a physical object.

Notice also that it is the discrete selections that are measured.

not the reality of the word flying around in space.

No, only the ones you actually measure/detect (and it still gets worse than that though but I'll spare you for now )

Most of your post is total non-sense.

And most of the reason why it appears as total nonsense is because of conflicting beliefs - I'm simply pointing out problems and paradoxes that exist in current definitions and manners of measurement and interpretation etc.

People tend to know that taking the definitions literally don't work so they causually skim around that and reinterprete things to give the results they expect but it ended up being entirely nonrigorous and you even recognize the conflicts, though you believe it's because I'm not making sense.

Beleive in non-sense all ya want, and try all ya want, ya can't create a physical paradox, thus__They 'dun't' existo...

I agree that there should be a solid logic to physics though it is an interesting question as to whether or not there could exist a physical paradox. Thank you for the idea, that's something interesting to consider

Then untangle it, or ask how__Simple enough...!

Sounds good.

I'll take the classical__You can have the relativity__OK...?

Somehow I think you got the better deal on that one. Wait, can we swap? (You must have seen through my schemeing and beat me to it. Yes, ultimately there should be a way to rewrite things in most any form because observations are "filtered" by the properties of the observer, so we might as well pick the simplest possible physical system capable of Universal Computation .. that's similar to where I was heading too. Congratulations. Actually, it's ok. I'm working more along the lines of digital computation, but still having a conversion to observations of Newtonian physics is necessary)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steve, can't we bring this a bit more down to earth, with the simple geometric logic of the ancients? All that's required to know the world of/from experience to highter mathematics are the simple isomorphic geometric logics and formulas of our greatest logicians and mathematicians, from Pythagoras to Einstein and Lefebvre, etc. Some of these would be a squared, plus b squared equals c squared, L1M1=L2M2 Archimedes Center of Mass, Newton's Laws of Motion formulas, Einstein's Universal Equations and Laws, E equals MC squared and c, Noether's symmetries, etc.. Since all Universal Laws and Formulas are Isomorphic, at limit, we only need these best and simple Laws of Isomorphic Symmetries, to solve for the complexities, and not the formal maths that can't reach the isomorphic symmetries, due to their Godel(numbers) and Tarski(axiom semantics) incompletenesses. What say we stick with the first order maths and logics, which Godel showed were fully complete, grounded and sound, i.e., the geometric logics, algebras and diagrams, etc. Then, we'll encounter much less confusion in trying to unite disparate ideas...

It's the belief that the infinite has been addressed in some concept that causes the problem.

Only to/for mathematicians, who refuse to look from the 'logica docens' into the 'logica utens'.

What would distinguish between an exact measurement of a wavelength or an approximate one in your opinion?

Type of instruments used...?

I'm just taking it to a new level of precision

What, better than the best x-ray crystalography, electron microscopes of the newest generations, or what?

... noone can actually perform continuous computations or do other infinite things)

If you'd been paying attention, no-one said they could.

Yes, it's once again impossible to work with the infinite form and using a rational approximation detaches it from being logically constructed and every technique used to try to prove that say .999....=1 can also be used to prove they are not equal. I prefer to keep the two forms as independent and recognize that 1 is only a physical approximation to .999..., but logically they aren't identical.

So in other words, you want to throw away rational math, when it's all we have__Na Da...? I'll keep Huygens, Euler, Newton, Liebniz and Gauss, etc., thank-you just the same...

I'm simply pointing out problems and paradoxes...

You haven't shown us that physical paradox yet...?

I agree that there should be a solid logic to physics though it is an interesting question as to whether or not there could exist a physical paradox. Thank you for the idea, that's something interesting to consider

Somehow I think you got the better deal on that one. Wait, can we swap? (You must have seen through my schemeing and beat me to it. Yes, ultimately there should be a way to rewrite things in most any form because observations are "filtered" by the properties of the observer, so we might as well pick the simplest possible physical system capable of Universal Computation .. that's similar to where I was heading too. Congratulations. Actually, it's ok. I'm working more along the lines of digital computation, but still having a conversion to observations of Newtonian physics is necessary)

And what and who do you think Boole was/is__If not digital? You're making it part way to ground__Keepa coming...

[labelwench]

Hello Lloyd, Steve,

Wanted to leave this thought with you two eloquent debaters.

Walking around the yard, I am amazed to observe how quickly nature reclaims it's own. While some of the grass has matured and is drying in place, far more is simply receding, it's constituents being recycled for another season.

Perhaps, humans, also are 'bio-fuel', our temporary form made manifest by the potentials of energy and motion that comprise our universe.

We are made of similar stuff as other creatures, even the unusual ones. We arrive and depart, most in the customary manner.

Because we are sentient, and conscious of the fact, we seem inclined to remove ourself from the basic equation of life, which seems rather hierarchal, on the face of it.

In observing other species, I note that each is very cognizant of those things which are important to it's survival. Many other species and effects just 'do not register'.

I'm suggesting that we are but a part of something, and that merely by existing, we are fulfilling our purpose. Our perceptions are limited to those understandings neccesary for survival and perhaps some things are likewise not registering with us.

We are the answer we seek, and we are not likely to enjoy learning that we are but constructs of our environment, arising from and returning to same.

We are part of an infinite recycling system, and whether viewed from a religious or scientific angle, we shall continue to another place in another form, and we shall all be as one.

Pardon my intrusion. Working night shift again and almost time to crash, but my mind was racing around like the red squirrels gathering their pine cones against the coming winter. Figured if I didn't post now, it would slip my mind while resting.

Regards,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

You haven't shown us that physical paradox yet...?

I already pointed out many paradoxical views that much of modern science already possesses and had said that it was an interesting question as to whether or not there could actually exist a physical paradox (well in many ways this is time itself, but it's still interesting if there might be some more subtle forms. That's just an interesting thought to consider but we already have mainstream theories that are paradoxical - relativity is a good example, though the idea of the Big Bang stretching space would also be undetectable - what does it stretch space relative to? There would need to be an unstretched space in order that such stretching could be measured - what's the unstretched space they're measuring if all of space is contained by the Big Bang? And I pointed out imprecisions that are very common. I also pointed out elsewhere paradoxes inherent in the NIST definitions of time, distance and the speed of light - you can't measure a distance without time and basically noone is actually using the definitions as they're stated because these 3 are all related with no enough independent values to determine all of them)

I can go on, but I've done that enough.

Steve, can't we bring this a bit more down to earth, with the simple geometric logic of the ancients? All that's required to know the world of/from experience to highter mathematics are the simple isomorphic geometric logics and formulas of our greatest logicians and mathematicians, from Pythagoras to Einstein and Lefebvre, etc. Some of these would be a squared, plus b squared equals c squared,

Notice already that there are only specific rational solutions to this equation.

If we integrate the area of a circle as the radius is increased:

x^2+y^2<=r^2

This increases chaotically, but converges toward that predicted by pi*r^2.

But if we instead tried to use the form of a perimeter:

x^2+y^2=r^2

The perimeter never converges stably. (I wish I had some of my work available to show here, but the perimeter is never a solid line and is a chaotic function of r)

In other words, if people were paying greater attention, there were already "atoms" existing in the mathematics but it's generally blurred into a real numbers and assumed straight lines which have been continually shown by physical and logical tests to be invalid - it may appear as though motions in space are smooth and continuous but every detailed measure has shown this always to be false. It's simply the mind that interpolates between points and imagines a continuity between things and that problem extends throughout half the field of mathematics.

Since all Universal Laws and Formulas are Isomorphic, at limit, we only need these best and simple Laws of Isomorphic Symmetries, to solve for the complexities, and not the formal maths that can't reach the isomorphic symmetries

Yes, 1 to 1 mappings are the only "provably" correct logical transformations.

If we map one to many, then we add and irreducible uncertainty - nothing differentiates between which of the two or more possible results to select from, so this is really a non-existent mapping, it's a creative act - logic can't do it.

If we map many to one, then we can't (and this is a bit hard to follow and it's often overlooked) even prove that there is a many to one mapping - no matter which of those initial states were imagined to exist, they only lead to the same end state. (So we're just hypothesizing about intangibles - if there's no way to logically distinguish between them, then only one can be shown to exist)

due to their Godel(numbers) and Tarski(axiom semantics) incompletenesses. What say we stick with the first order maths and logics, which Godel showed were fully complete, grounded and sound,

To me this is just information theory - you can't create it out of thin air and if you destroy it, you aren't getting it back (and you need to collect another sample, though in some cases there's only one opportunity to retain these).

There are also detailed spectrums that result from this - a uniformly distributed (in many ways the ideal of randomness) space of n possibilities can be potentially factored into n=a*b*c*..., but this depends upon the primes contained in n and so we immediately have spectral information arise from logical conservation of information. (Yes, in a manner quite analogous to conservation of energy in physics and energy existing with spectral properties - the pure logic and the physics agree)

i.e., the geometric logics, algebras and diagrams, etc. Then, we'll encounter much less confusion in trying to unite disparate ideas...

Yes, I do agree that this is ideal, though I admit that there are many complexities to these finite and precise constructivist views - so admittedly there can become a need to impose statistical methods upon them to reduce the information content, but that's where we're effectively moving into classical realms and losing the detailed properties of the logic (and it doesn't come back after that).

And what and who do you think Boole was/is__If not digital? You're making it part way to ground__Keepa coming...

Ok, heading there

I agree with you that something with a uniform 3 way representation is not ideally represented by anything other than a base 3 representation.

We can "fudge" it with binary logic, but we lose the 1 to 1 mappings and fundamentally cannot take "random" binary information and convert it to a perfectly random ternary representation (though we could construct objects as powers of 2)

For example, if we sampled 2 binary digits, there are 4 possible combinations - any compression to 3 states will give one state twice the probability or density of the other states and though we could take larger groups of binary units and create a large group of semi uniform 3 way/phase relationships, it's never precise and takes large quantities of information and/or time (now this is interesting though because it can represent something similar to learning approximate properties existing with different dimensional forms).

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I already pointed out many paradoxical views that much of modern science already possesses and had said that it was an interesting question as to whether or not there could actually exist a physical paradox (well in many ways this is time itself, but it's still interesting if there might be some more subtle forms.

Steve, time isn't a physical entity__It's a measurement of passing physical/matter/motion/energy...

That's just an interesting thought to consider but we already have mainstream theories that are paradoxical - relativity is a good example, though the idea of the Big Bang stretching space would also be undetectable - what does it stretch space relative to?

Again Steve, these are just interpretations of__The universe actually exists and does exactly/physically what it does__What it does...

And I pointed out imprecisions that are very common. I also pointed out elsewhere paradoxes inherent in the NIST definitions of time, distance and the speed of light - you can't measure a distance without time and basically noone is actually using the definitions as they're stated because these 3 are all related with no enough independent values to determine all of them)

And again Steve, you fail to connect yourself to any physical reality, just to ideas and interpretations floating around in your and others' heads__Where's ground Steve_Don't ya gut any

Yes, 1 to 1 mappings are the only "provably" correct logical transformations.

Oh thanks, master...

If we map one to many, then we add and irreducible uncertainty - nothing differentiates between which of the two or more possible results to select from, so this is really a non-existent mapping, it's a creative act - logic can't do it.

And you flunk math again. True probability statistics and proportionalities, the ancient ratios, easily handles this__Sorry...

If we map many to one, then we can't (and this is a bit hard to follow and it's often overlooked) even prove that there is a many to one mapping - no matter which of those initial states were imagined to exist, they only lead to the same end state. (So we're just hypothesizing about intangibles - if there's no way to logically distinguish between them, then only one can be shown to exist)

You drink far too much turkey juice__Flunked again...

Yes, I do agree that this is ideal, though I admit that there are many complexities to these finite and precise constructivist views - so admittedly there can become a need to impose statistical methods upon them to reduce the information content, but that's where we're effectively moving into classical realms and losing the detailed properties of the logic (and it doesn't come back after that).

We really gotta buy you a wheelchair with wings__and find a few flying nurses...

Ok, heading there
I agree with you that something with a uniform 3 way representation is not ideally represented by anything other than a base 3 representation.

And he finally says something, by agreeing with me...

We can "fudge" it with binary logic, but we lose the 1 to 1 mappings and fundamentally cannot take "random" binary information and convert it to a perfectly random ternary representation...

Why in hell do you keep posting, what I'm not interested in, and taking the abuse...?

[SteveA]

Hello Lloyd, Steve,

Wanted to leave this thought with you two eloquent debaters.

Walking around the yard, I am amazed to observe how quickly nature reclaims it's own. While some of the grass has matured and is drying in place, far more is simply receding, it's constituents being recycled for another season.

Perhaps, humans, also are 'bio-fuel', our temporary form made manifest by the potentials of energy and motion that comprise our universe.

We are made of similar stuff as other creatures, even the unusual ones. We arrive and depart, most in the customary manner.

Because we are sentient, and conscious of the fact, we seem inclined to remove ourself from the basic equation of life, which seems rather hierarchal, on the face of it.

In observing other species, I note that each is very cognizant of those things which are important to it's survival. Many other species and effects just 'do not register'.

I'm suggesting that we are but a part of something, and that merely by existing, we are fulfilling our purpose. Our perceptions are limited to those understandings neccesary for survival and perhaps some things are likewise not registering with us.

We are the answer we seek, and we are not likely to enjoy learning that we are but constructs of our environment, arising from and returning to same.

We are part of an infinite recycling system, and whether viewed from a religious or scientific angle, we shall continue to another place in another form, and we shall all be as one.

Pardon my intrusion. Working night shift again and almost time to crash, but my mind was racing around like the red squirrels gathering their pine cones against the coming winter. Figured if I didn't post now, it would slip my mind while resting.

Regards,

Labelwench

That's a possibility, but there still appears something that could either way - in a physical sense, no, it doesn't seem like anything physical could last forever.

For example, let's say there's a beautiful tree that every likes to come back and visit (it doesn't matter specifically what it is, but just something described by a set of properties that isn't infinite). If time is infinite, then there is no loop in it and it doesn't repeat.

So if see the tree in one moment, but it must change the next, then we have a few photons different and for all intents and purposes it's still the same tree (almost imperceivably different), but of course if we keep doing this them more and more must change and we have to move twigs and eventually branches and keep going more and more. Eventually we'd have to add things like an orange stripe or other things were not really representative of the original tree ... the tree was only described by a closed set of properties and it can't exist over an infinite time - that's the purely logical view.

But there's also another possibility - conscious perceptions aren't very easily "quantized" - notice that if someone saw green and blue swapped, the tree could still exist in its identical physical and finite form, but consciously its representation had been changed - notice that effectively two or more people could see the tree at the same time in this manner and it physically changes nothing (how many people are in you already? ).

Notice that you could even "loop back" in time like this by swapping some perceptions and effectively "count" repetitions in this manner (there are 6 possible permutations of red, green and blue) - notice that not even a memory of having previously seen the tree would exist.

The question would be whether or not such conscious properties could be infinitely altered ... (I tend to think not, but really don't know), but it's at least an interesting possibility for replaying the past and you could see a single "Infinite" thing as containing all these possible physical timelines rigidly and we mix various conscious perceptions with them to add different qualities that extend beyond the physical events (I tend to think this is how consciousness works - the landscape remains rigid and shows all possible relationships between things that can exist - we're those "things" and paint them with our brush of conscious perceptions, following along the branches, but a timeline cannot be followed further than the available conscious perceptions to distinguish between all those moments and so birth and death occur - something beyond these perceptions would appear to have to determine that and that could be where the will arises - all the information of what's done throughout life could even be determined before birth or before - there's an equivalent "energy" or information it would take to make such a selection and for an infinite structure, that would also be infinite and a physical unknown - so when or where someone might have made decisions about their life could be intangible - you might decide to do something now, but it could also have been something you've always done or decided to do - of course the same applies to myself and I've sort of given up on trying to figure out where it all came from, but still there are a lot of possibilities over how the known parts fit together ).

[SteveA]

Steve, time isn't a physical entity__It's a measurement of passing physical/matter/motion/energy...

Well would you at least agree that it represents a continuity between physical events? (And this should require something beyond independent physical objects to construct a continuity or determine relationships between them).

Again Steve, these are just interpretations of__The universe actually exists and does exactly/physically what it does__What it does...

They're what the universe is believed to do when you don't actually take the theories literally. If you take the theories literally they don't describe the universe.

There are no physical probability waves and there are no "local" references denoted in space (point to precisely what a "local" reference is)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame

In theoretical physics, a local reference framelocal frame) refers to a coordinate system or frame of reference that is only expected to function over a small region or a restricted region of space or spacetime.

What is this "small region" (come on, someone should have the guts to say it. How is it that we can have all these intelligent people continually ignore the obvious)

The same goes for calculus ... when does an infinitesimal equal zero?

If I constrain 0<|e|, this means nothing. It specifically says that the error is never zero and it could be infinitely wrong.

That's what it literally means, but no, it's taken in some unknown and unspecified physical context of "smallness" and "near" etc.
(
Notice that if I happen to multiply this error by 2, then it fails to meet the original definition. This is how block holes were "discovered" it was just the mathematics ignoring information and tossing things out. The discontinuity arose in the logic and not in any physical samples.

And again Steve, you fail to connect yourself to any physical reality, just to ideas and interpretations floating around in your and others' heads__Where's ground Steve_Don't ya gut any

Now lets be honest here. Is it really me who's doing this or are you simply trying to ignore my comments?

And you flunk math again. True probability statistics and proportionalities, the ancient ratios, easily handles this__Sorry...

Sorry, you'll have to give me something more than that. Give me some hard logic or examples.

I no longer accept whim and fancy as evidence. I simply stick to things that can be real (even if they ultimately do not end up as real or I discover something later that I missed, they were at least possible within the constraints I know of with little hand waving ... it's a serious subject to me because, well hey, it's my whole life! ).

And he finally says something, by agreeing with me...

There wasn't a disagreement on this.

You drink far too much turkey juice__Flunked again...

We really gotta buy you a wheelchair with wings__and find a few flying nurses...

Why in hell do you keep posting, what I'm not interested in, and taking the abuse...?

I could ask you the same and I agree it doesn't appear you're interested, so why do you reply?