[dipayankar]

You hit the nail there about communication...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Fredrick, you are mixing far to many feelings/aesthetics into your logic, to make any logical mathematical sense. Unless you offer a mathematical algorithm of unification, for logic and feelings, you have neither a concept of proper feelings, or a concept of proper a-priori logic. Choose one or the other, or submit the mathematical algorithm of unification___Not more words___The math... So far you haven't... You haven't got me to any point of yours, yet Fredrick. In order to communicate with me, you must choose one track or the other___Either straight art/feelings/aesthetics, or straight objective, and or, abstract a-priori mathematical logic, or straight mathematical logic___The profound fundamental common sense... Lloyd p.s. You know, from these communications with all on this forum, I think the real problem, is just learning the requirements, of this new electronic medium, to get our points across to others. It seems much more difficult, than it ought to be... It must be the time of reflection, the medium allows between responses. It makes for better responses, but for less complicit understanding... What do you think...?

[MJA]

[quote=Lloyd Gillespie;42507]. Unless you offer a mathematical algorithm of unification, for logic and feelings, you have neither a concept of proper feelings, or a concept of proper a-priori logic. Choose one or the other, or submit the mathematical algorithm of unification___Not more words___The math... So far you haven't...

Lloyd


I would mathematically and naturally offer this single simple logical symbol of unification or truth, "no words___ the Math":

=

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

MJA, stop being a child, and the nonsense will go away...

Lloyd

[quote=MJA;42559]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie . Unless you offer a mathematical algorithm of unification, for logic and feelings, you have neither a concept of proper feelings, or a concept of proper a-priori logic. Choose one or the other, or submit the mathematical algorithm of unification___Not more words___The math... So far you haven't... Lloyd I would mathematically and naturally offer this single simple logical symbol of unification or truth, "no words___ the Math": = = MJA

[dipayankar]

Is there any way we can mathematically quantify feelings?? I guess feelings would be more human and hence unquantifiable..


[quote=MJA;42559]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie . Unless you offer a mathematical algorithm of unification, for logic and feelings, you have neither a concept of proper feelings, or a concept of proper a-priori logic. Choose one or the other, or submit the mathematical algorithm of unification___Not more words___The math... So far you haven't... Lloyd I would mathematically and naturally offer this single simple logical symbol of unification or truth, "no words___ the Math": = = MJA

[Fredrick]

You may not want to continue?

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie You haven't got me to any point of yours yet, Fredrick. In order to communicate with me, you must choose one track or the other___Either straight art/feelings/aesthetics, or straight objective, and or, abstract a-priori mathematical logic, or straight mathematical logic___The profound fundamental common sense... Lloyd p.s. You know, from these communications with all on this forum, I think the real problem is just learning the requirements of this new electronic medium to get our points across to others.

Your reply is loud and clear, Lloyd. I have no problems understanding you. You do not want to communicate when it is about the real basics, only about the established/accepted basics (of course they overlap). You demand of me to make a choice, but making a choice is exactly the crux of the matter. It is part and parcel of the toe.

It should not be a problem for an intelligent person like you to understand the essence of my words, Lloyd. And if you want to talk about the mathematical basics only, please, do so, but don't use names and theories. Give me the specific essence of what you are trying to say when you are using big names and theories.

[Fredrick]

When desiring to find the toe, one does not have to think outside the box. Yet it is imperative to also not get stuck only thinking inside the box.

The place of the toe is the box.

The box is not exactly like the inside of the box, and it is definitively not anything outside the box. Also, it is easy to find boxes that are not the toe; they are boxes, yet they are limited within their own set-ups and definitions. It is hard to distinguish between what is the box that is the toe and the other boxes; there is some overlapping going on. Ultimately, the box that is the toe cannot be anything other than simple. The other boxes may in their way be simple, too, but they become very complicated when they are confused to be the box that is the toe.

I think this is a good fit for the three thread because there are three positions discussed here: outside the box, the box and inside the box. The fourth position(s), belonging to the boxes that are not the toe, belong either inside the box that is the toe, or are only parts of the box that is the toe.

[rybot]

Originally Posted by dipayankar We would be talking of the EM Forces, The strong and the weak nuclear forces..

Dipa, aren't you excluding a fourth bosonic force i.e. the mesons( two quarks ) are known as the strong nuclear force as oppsoed to gluons which are truly a sub-nculear strong force?

I know that is weird since they are fermions but the spin number identifies them as bosons.

They are exchanged between bayronic particles e.g. protons and protons, proton and neutrons and neuton and neutrons.

I have another concern about threeness which involves simple binary action or non-action( passive )that may or may not have been covered here as the binary enumerations.

I think Tina has a post regarding;

+ aka +1( e.g. postive charge proton )

- aka -1( e.g. negative charge electron )

and 0 aka neutral( chargeless neutron grey area )

My concern is to specific set of circumstances( light switch ) wherein there is *on*( ergo electrons flow ) and *off*( ergo no electron flow ).

There is no grey area between those two that I'm aware of.

Regarding the latter there is only one grey area of consideration in that circumstance and that is of the uncertainty of mind, as to whether the electrons are, or, are not flowing through the switch.

If there is no light bulb( or meter ) to tell us if the electrons are flowing through the switch --or not-- then we need to make a physical observation, by installing light bulb meter whatever.

So we have the physical flow( active ) or no flow( passive ) and then metaphysial abstraction uncertatinty( grey area ) of mind.

Rybo

[Tina]

Originally Posted by rybot . I have another concern about threeness which involves simple binary action or non-action( passive )that may or may not have been covered here as the binary enumerations. I think Tina has a post regarding; + aka +1( e.g. postive charge proton ) - aka -1( e.g. negative charge electron ) and 0 aka neutral( chargeless neutron grey area ) My concern is to specific set of circumstances( light switch ) wherein there is *on*( ergo electrons flow ) and *off*( ergo no electron flow ). There is no grey area between those two that I'm aware of. So we have the physical flow( active ) or no flow( passive ) and then metaphysial abstraction uncertatinty( grey area ) of mind. Rybo

Before anyone makes another move I suggest they watch this video

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=V026kSw4XCs

Then if you feel inclined watch PARTS 1-7 of Electric Universe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlnFsO9RN4c

[dipayankar]

I broadly classified the forces. Also somehow the concept of gluon is not comforting. This seems more like a hypothetical particle.

Originally Posted by rybot Dipa, aren't you excluding a fourth bosonic force i.e. the mesons( two quarks ) are known as the strong nuclear force as oppsoed to gluons which are truly a sub-nculear strong force? I know that is weird since they are fermions but the spin number identifies them as bosons. They are exchanged between bayronic particles e.g. protons and protons, proton and neutrons and neuton and neutrons. I have another concern about threeness which involves simple binary action or non-action( passive )that may or may not have been covered here as the binary enumerations. I think Tina has a post regarding; + aka +1( e.g. postive charge proton ) - aka -1( e.g. negative charge electron ) and 0 aka neutral( chargeless neutron grey area ) My concern is to specific set of circumstances( light switch ) wherein there is *on*( ergo electrons flow ) and *off*( ergo no electron flow ). There is no grey area between those two that I'm aware of. Regarding the latter there is only one grey area of consideration in that circumstance and that is of the uncertainty of mind, as to whether the electrons are, or, are not flowing through the switch. If there is no light bulb( or meter ) to tell us if the electrons are flowing through the switch --or not-- then we need to make a physical observation, by installing light bulb meter whatever. So we have the physical flow( active ) or no flow( passive ) and then metaphysial abstraction uncertatinty( grey area ) of mind. Rybo

[Tina]

[quote=dipayankar;42598]Is there any way we can mathematically quantify feelings?? I guess feelings would be more human and hence unquantifiable..
[quote]



I believe we can quantify feelings. If we take the six universally regognised human instinctive emotions:

Fear
Anger
Disgust
Surprise
Sadness
Happiness

Then we can classifify our individual feelings by identifying them as members of one of these major groups. Once the identified group is found then you can begin to rate the degree of feeling on a scale.

e.g.
Shyness - Fear - 2 on Fear Scale
Impatience - Anger - 4 on Anger Scale
Homophobic - Disgust - 9 on Disgust scale