challenging math and science!

how can 0 x 72,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 1?

easy:


according to popular belief:

cells are not consciously self aware?

then people are saying that

cells are zero in the self aware department, but collectively they are not?

then here is the belief system of humanity:

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (zero for each cell) = 1?

how does 1 come from any amount of zeros?

0 + 0 + 0 to the infinite degree still equalls zero, doesn't it?

then how can any amount of zero self awarenesses be self aware?

either math is flawed, or the macro-organisms are.

we are 1, we are many, many are 1

deny ignorance means to not deny truth.

Maby the 1 comes from the socalled "soul"? Just a thought....

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
either math is flawed, or the macro-organisms are.

There are manic moments when the answer to this is ever on the tip of my tongue.

But this is not one of those moments.

Neither is flawed, but the representative nature of a closed logic system does not adequately represent an unclosed system with undiscovered potential would be close to my answer.

Organically, even artistically, I understand why 0 + 0 + 0 (ad infinitum) = 1.

Just as it's as plain as the nose on a Picasso face that 1 +1 = 3.

A partial explanation lies in the relationship of viewer and viewed, and sets and subsets as well. One equals one when studied alone, but as half of two, it is not adequately 50% of what is twoness except in a closed logic system. I'm just being allegorical to your organic proof.

There's an undiscovered relational value (or disvalue rather) somewhere that accounts for this. Intuitively alot of people want to "call it" around 42%, but again that's just an artistic representation.

Originally posted by sebastiaan
Maby the 1 comes from the socalled "soul"? Just a thought....

That would be the metaphysical shorthand, yes.

But playing the "God" trump card is just lazy and pretty much giving up isn't it?

What fun is that?

This is nothing groundbreaking, it's known to science as an emergent property.

[edit on 6/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This is nothing groundbreaking, it's known to science as an emergent property.

The bitter enemy of reductionism.

Discord remains in play. Not just because of counter arguments, but we're talking about the defining properties of math & science versus what it is to be "consciously self aware" (not adequately covered by any discovered formula). At least I think we are.

EP could adequately describe how the properties of a gas come to be from it's elemental construct, but consciousness? Still in dispute.

It totally blows to not be able to give WATS to a super mod!!!

We're at a stage where human consciousness is still pretty much seperated from mathematics. You can keep adding 0's until the cows come home but we all know that "nothing" cannot produce a "something".
The whole number could maybe come from all the energy added up from the cells whose "mass" might be zero. Who knows.

Why do I feel like I've seen this topic in about 5 or so other threads recently? I think even from the same author?

Are individual cells self aware? The easy answer is no. But that of course is the point you are trying to make right. How can a series of unaware, individual cells create a self aware human being?

If you take one individual cell seperately away from the human body, does the rest of the human body become less aware of itself? No.

Is it the brain that makes someone aware of themself (the old, "I think therefore I am" shtick)? Yes.

Is the brain made up of unaware, individual cells? Yes.

Is this a bit of a contradiction? Yes.

What's the point? None really. Like most things in life, this is not an answerable question, but a fun one to ask.

Oh, and the other question: Is math flawed? Yes. Perhaps not right now, but eventually we will find a flaw, rewrite it, and try and find the next flaw. That's the evolution of math.

I once read that cells communicate through the use of certain proteins. I don't believe that would make them self-aware, however. I think that to evolve on a cellular level it would have to be accomplished within the sex cells of the organism; otherwise the immune system might consider this new mutated cell or cells a cancer. I still suspect that a genetic evolution within a given species may be the unlocking of an already exsisting recessive trait or set of traits within the genetic code. OR, maybe I'm full of the brown stuff....

.
I think you are mistaken if you think a single cell is completely unaware of its environment.

Many single celled organisms move towards or away from heat, light, various chemicals.

Each cell has self-regulating mechanisms, like water and salt balances.
They have to track down food sources or at least regulate how much food chemical is taken in. It seems to me that cells have to have mechanisms for acheiving some optimum [happy] medium. This requires sensing their environment and responding accordingly. It may be mechanistic, but much of human thought and action is more mechanistic than inspired.

Some bacteria wait untill they get a [chemically passed] quorum of enough other bacterial before they aggresively invade a surface or host organism.

So maybe the equation is 0.0000000000000001 * 10000000000000000 = 1
[I think i got the right number of zeros, well you know what i mean]

Also neurons are very odd cells with many non-standard apendages and functions.

Sort of like there are more dimensions at a very small scale than is apparent on the macro scale. Just because someone fails to see it, does not mean it is not there.

You live because your cells live. When they die, you die.
.

Maybe this will help:

Allow each cell to have a spiritual nature (x) and a physical nature(y) and the sum of these natures is a nature with 0 awareness.

If we postilate that the spiritual nature is always aware, this gives x = 1.

if y + x = 0 where x = 1 then y = -1

1 + -1 = 0

With me so far?

(Math refresher)

So, in a finite set we would have:

1 + -1 + 1 + -1 + 1 + -1 + 1 + -1 = 0

Adding or moving the parenthesis in an addition problem does not change the answer.

(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) = 0

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + -1 = 0


Now back to find the problem at hand:

Find the sum of the infinite series:

1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1 ....

Now suppose we position parenthesis like this:
(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ....
or 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ....
Obviously the sum will be 0.

But now supposed we change the position of the parenthesis like so:
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) ....
or 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ....
Obviously the sum will be 1.

Enjoy!



[edit on 7-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Raphael_UO, you did some cute math but there are a couple of inconsistencies that I can point out. You assigned a constant 1 for X (Spiritual nature of an individual cell) Y ends up being (-1) right? So you’re now saying that they cannot coexist EVER. It’ll always cancel out. My cells have to choose either or!:shk: Plus….hmm…Mass…= -1? That’s new.

Slank, nice post!

This thread… de ja vu anyone?

Originally posted by slank
Many single celled organisms move towards or away from heat, light, various chemicals.

So do many plants. Are plants "self-aware"? Nope...

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by sebastiaan
Maby the 1 comes from the socalled "soul"? Just a thought....

That would be the metaphysical shorthand, yes.

But playing the "God" trump card is just lazy and pretty much giving up isn't it?

What fun is that?

then perhaps we should just take "God" out of the equation and replace that word with "truth".

perhaps "truth" will not offend anyone, unless they are offended by the "truth".

perhaps "truth" was all that did exist in the beginning.

perhaps "truth" didn't want to be alone and had the ability and authority to not be alone.

perhaps "truth" knew the one thing that could further fullfill it, second to only "truth".

perhaps "truth" is "truth" needs the "truth" to love the "truth" in order for the "truth" to be eternal?

and while we are dealing with per hapses we should consider that when the "truth" created love, it inadvertanly created love's polar opposite.

would love need to have it's polar opposite in order to exist? does love need that purpose for existance?

we (the sum of "my" cells) believe that fear would be the opposite of love.

we think it is fear that learned to hate truth.

recap:

truth needs truth loving truth in order to be eternal.
truth can not comprehend fear or hate.
truth fearing truth?
truth hating truth?
truth loving truth.
love loving fear, for it is love's purpose to existance.
love loving hate, to defeat fear's greatest weapon against truth.

perhaps our purpose here is to find the equation that is most perfect that allows truth to keep love and love to keep fear and fear to keep hate and truth to keep them all and all that stem from them?

perhaps that is just too simple a definition of the purpose for existance.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This is nothing groundbreaking, it's known to science as an emergent property.

[edit on 6/7/2005 by djohnsto77]

i'll have to look into the emergent property as defined by other, can't say i can recal hearing about it. the teacher will do some research into it, i have homework.

Originally posted by mpeake
Why do I feel like I've seen this topic in about 5 or so other threads recently? I think even from the same author?

because some minds are closed to certain forums. i need the input from scientists.

i need the input from galactic loving astronomers.

i need the input from mathamaticians.

i need the input from every discipline and every profession and every perspective to find any answer to any one question in order to find the answer that everyone agrees on. and if everyone says that is the truth, then we will have found it.

unfortunatley those who have dominion and authority in this world confine me to thier judgment and re-route me to a forum that they believe i belong in.

in the effort of trying to lead the horse to water i discovered that it is just best to leave some water everwhere the horse might go, so when it's thirsty, the water is already there, and i no longer have the responsibility of being a leader for thirsty horses.

i desire the knowledge from those who do not subscribe to faith, or spirituality, or theology.

but, i'm denied truth from them, because i get re-routed to here.

people say deny ignorance, but seldom practice it sometimes.

no quarrells, though. look at the great company we've found. and perfect thoughts that create more thoughts as well.

you guys are great.

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
Raphael_UO, you did some cute math but there are a couple of inconsistencies that I can point out. You assigned a constant 1 for X (Spiritual nature of an individual cell) Y ends up being (-1) right? So you’re now saying that they cannot coexist EVER. It’ll always cancel out. My cells have to choose either or!:shk: Plus….hmm…Mass…= -1? That’s new.

The 1 and -1 were to define natures of awareness only. What I postilated will always cancel out without "the infinite". Any "finite system" would be unaware.

In the very least my postilation only denies the following from the original post:

0 + 0 + 0 to the infinite degree still equalls zero, doesn't it?

Originally posted by slank
.
I think you are mistaken if you think a single cell is completely unaware of its environment.

Many single celled organisms move towards or away from heat, light, various chemicals.

Each cell has self-regulating mechanisms, like water and salt balances.
They have to track down food sources or at least regulate how much food chemical is taken in. It seems to me that cells have to have mechanisms for acheiving some optimum [happy] medium. This requires sensing their environment and responding accordingly. It may be mechanistic, but much of human thought and action is more mechanistic than inspired.

Some bacteria wait untill they get a [chemically passed] quorum of enough other bacterial before they aggresively invade a surface or host organism.

So maybe the equation is 0.0000000000000001 * 10000000000000000 = 1
[I think i got the right number of zeros, well you know what i mean]

Also neurons are very odd cells with many non-standard apendages and functions.

Sort of like there are more dimensions at a very small scale than is apparent on the macro scale. Just because someone fails to see it, does not mean it is not there.

You live because your cells live. When they die, you die.
.

so perhaps what we are considering is levels of non-self-awareness and levels of self-awareness?

i comprehend the insight. aware of only what they can witness, and repsond only to what they can witness.

but, now with the neuron brain cells we are talking about individual micro self awarenesses that are somewhat aware of the macro-organisms experiences and share witnessing what is in the body, and storing information for the macro-organism.

is it possible they have evolved with the storing of more information over generations to be more self aware, and realizing they are self aware, want to share the burder of record keeping with the cells ouside the brain?

neuro brain cells that can travel and are not bound?

maybe our brain likes this concept, or maybe enlightenment isn't possible.

Raphael_UO

not sure how to respond to your post, yet. i like it, though, and know where your headed with it. not counting you out, just considering your point of view in the most positive light i can.

always an optimist!

it's either that or for some reason "truth" has put many here to waste our time, and that would be to rude of "truth" to do.

be back this afternoon. thanks guys.

"0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (zero for each cell) = 1?"

Just like music: individually, 'notes' are just single-frequency vibrations... but collectively, they transcend the laws of physics and become music.