Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

page: 5
120
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

"That things are only a copy of Numbers; nay, that in some mysterious way, Numbers are things themselves (1)"


There are aspects of this idea that fundamentally suggest all things are numbers.


In a imperfect way, it would be better to change that to say all things that are ordinary are numbers. The infinite is not only ordinary, it is also everything not ordinary, so we can not agree to call the infinite ordinary, as it is not finite.




I'm inclined to say numbers represent "functiontionally executable language" of the universe.

What's somewhat staggering is to think even if humans were created as "programs," we and our Gods / gods (assuming we have creators) are all made up of the same parts. These infinite pieces simply rearrange themselves in different ways to create something that's a unique presentation of the infinite possibilities of ordinalities.


The physical is a computer. Instead of a perspective of the infinite shrunken to the physical, your perspective is more useful when limited to only the physical and acknowledge the infinite exists within and beyond.



The paradox of we're all the same, but different is true and can be demonstrated mathematically (see: the banaschi-tarski paradox). It can also be seen in the sense that we're all made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, leptons, quarks, etc, just in different quantities and arrangements.


Computers are people, too.

Edit: P.S. avoid the use of 'scarcity' with the overtones of Capitalism... bad shock!

[edit on 8-11-2009 by dzonatas]




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Great thread.


Thanks much! Hope you got something out of it.


I found it funny that either nobody really read it, or they missed the point. Nobody has called you a socialist yet


It was inevitable this interpretation would turn up.

For the record I'm a centrist. When I was younger I had a more right-leaning ideology. As I got older and became disenchanted /w party politics, watching Republicans move away from principles of a minimalist government, I started to empathize more with the Democratic viewpoint. I quickly realized Democrats weren't much better. Now I simply look at the issues on a case by case basis and evaluate the individual merits of each given proposal. It's not as fun as the spectator-sports-attitude towards politics, "my team won!," but it is satisfying to know I have an understanding of the nuance that goes in to each piece of legislation, the details surrounding the issue, and a grasp of the compromises involved.

But getting back to the point, the idea as it's presented in the chart represents all possible power structures. True self-empowerment exists in the realm of Q2, because at that stage there's no observed interdependence between things. To try and go from Q3 to Q2 would be similar to advocating that humans would be in a better position if we were still monkeys. This isn't a natural progression as shown by historical record.
The graph simply attempts to combine the data of what has been, what we're currently working towards, and then evaluates the extreme ends of civilization to see what sort of behavior (geometric & human) falls out of that.

So to say I hold a socialistic view would be akin to saying when we're in Q4 - plenty that if I were to advocate aligning ourselves to individual identity, to allow for the rebirth of self (1 exig, 0 value, 0 good), that I'm then a Nietzschean capitalistic pig.

If I have a dogmatic philosophy it's that we should follow, to borrow a phrase from the Tao, "The Way." This graph is simply a better formalization of what "The Way" actually is.


Anyhow, I found your post well thought out in a scientific manner. I agree with almost every point you make. We are indeed on the verge of a major stepping stone with humanity. The question is will we throw off our old ideals and dream a little bit? Using robots to provide our basic necessities is absolutely ideal for me. I think all of our labor should be done with robots personally. The question becomes well then what will people do if robots take their jobs? Well this is where we need to realize the whole system needs a makeover.


No disagreements there!

Though it's understandable this would scare those who have more than the average man because how is it one person earns more than another in a world where no person does more than anyone else? Do those who already have excess get to keep it? This isn't a trivial problem.

This is why I believe it's fundamentally important that there be three categories of economic activity. One where there's still competition (capitalism), the notion of societal goals that provides for the betterment of ourselves & our children (voted for by all people), & a social minimum (in a world /w a robot labor-force all people should receive at a minimum food, water, & housing where universal health-care would be a secondary minimum not come before the basics).

If I had to identify the leading problem in the world today it's that people don't have a direct vote on how money is used.

Imagine a system where people not only vote for their representatives, but they also vote on their funding priorities.

For gaming aficionados simply envision a 4X turn-based strategy game like Civilization and how money is allotted by the player in percentage buckets for research, culture, religion, manufacturing, and military. In effect the standard citizen would, finally, have a direct say in determining how much of the budget could be used for military expense over say education or helping to rebuild infrastructure.

Obviously a large bulk of money would be needed to keep basic government functions running, but any excess money would be directly limited by the ratios and volumes as directly specified by the citizenry. The power of such a system is that it doesn’t involve the citizens in the details it simply allows the people to express priorities in terms of financial limits in relation to other high-level budgetary priorities.

So if the people voted for more spending for the Department of Education over say the Department of Defense and the DOD required a minimum of $400 billion (and an average of $500 billion) to operate while the Department of Education needed a minimum of $30 (and an average of $35) billion. Then the $664 billion DOD budget chosen by the President and his cabinet, that without voter opposition would be allocated to the DOD, would be reviewed by the Department of Education less $400 billion. If the Department of Education could offer a compelling reason for using a portion of this extra $264 billion, and assuming the DOD couldn’t convince the American public it would be better spent on their programs, then a portion of the money would be redirected to the Department of Education.

The process would continue for every other Department in order of least priority evaluated first up to the dollar limit of the “average budget.” Should the “average budget” be exhausted across all departments then more rounds would follow perhaps dividing the difference from the average and the minimum so as to not over-penalize the lowest-ranked department.

If less than 50% of the voting population could come to agreement on a given policy the President’s budgetary position would override the public’s indecision, but as a matter of good faith there would be the expectation that as a public servant the voting data would factor in to the decision making.

Obviously there are many other considerations that need to be factored in, but this illustrates one way that all people could be directly involved in policy making without having to lobby those with power.


I designed a monetary system that works in reverse of our current system that would support the system you describe. In the system I designed the government pays the people taxes. How do you like that? Anyhow, the system needs a rework to support a system such as you describe.


Sounds interesting, I'd love to read the details of your proposal. Is it online?

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

We need to dream a little bit.

Hear, hear!


If we ever get to the point where we are colonizing another planet or traveling in space money is just not going to do it and neither is metal backed currency.


Metal backed currency is simply a way of trying to restrict cash supply by things that people inherently and materialistically find valuable. A more sophisticated approach would be to limit capital based on all physical resources not just precious metals. If we're to have a "backed currency" we should put ecologists to work and have them calculate the total supply of all accessible materials on our planet. As more of these hard materials become available then-and-only-then should capital grow.

This actually gets to the heart of why I distinguish between "physical scarcity" and "psychological scarcity." Should psychologically scarce things be equal in value to physically scarce things? Lack of food is a much worse degree of scarcity than is, say, the lack of a videogame. I say this as a game programmer. This goes to the question of why do we reward what we do?

I would say ultimately my view of who should receive what is ultimately classist in the sense that I recognize a class system is embedded in scarcity (full treatment). Thus the only way to make things truly fair is to come to grips with this notion, to explicitly state cultural priorities, and finally confront the group(s) that will suffer under the selected belief structure.

Sadly our current system is designed to reward the incompetent and it punishes the responsible. If anyone contests this simply look at the Great Bailouts. Someone, anyone, please tell me what value do bankers add to our society? Their role is to physically protect other peoples assets, make "forward looking statements" (IE/ divining the future), and loan out borrowed money to other people at interest based on their own selection process (in violation of the 1st principle resulting in the loss of the money they were supposed to protect). So, question, with such an abysmal track record why do the people in this industry make so much money?

There's a deeper question here. Who determines how much a class of people make?

I don't pretend to have the solution for distribution of these resources, but at least I can throw out some possibilities and ask some hopefully incisive questions.

Maybe we should decide who / what we allocate our extra resources to based on explicit principles that we vote on in a democratic fashion? That way if there's no political candidate who embodies the majorities views we still have the ability to guide the purse string of our country to causes that we the people think are best for society.

This becomes a question of what values do we want to enshrine in our culture?

Do we want to devolve to a game of last-man standing? Because that's where we're headed. Or do we want to instead encourage people to stand up and be accountable?

The only way this can be done fairly is if all people are a given a vote on how we design our class system. I see this as something that should be fluid. One year our priorities might be infrastructure another year it might be energy research. A vote would allow citizens of society to determine how to allocate excess government revenue (as described above).

I personally feel those who are willing to go in to fields that have a greater social benefit should be rewarded and given more leniency. I don't think game programmers, or bankers for that matter, add much if any societal value. Thus I would put myself at the very bottom of the benefit pool. City planners, law enforcers, doctors, lawyers, ecologists, teachers, plumbers, sanitation engineers, etc., all of these people fill a much more integral role in my mind and therefore should be catered to, yes, disproportionately.

As a secondary means of rewarding good societal conduct I'd advocate allocating the remaining excess to citizenry who don't have a criminal record and those who participate in social roles, like, town hall meetings, fire-department boosters, etc.


I just want to see a world where the basic needs of all are satisfied. At that point, we can work on the next step of the process.


I too want to see change that's actionable, sane, and addresses the real problems we face as a people. The sooner we realize our true limitations the faster we can make progress towards removing them.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
This is all well and good in the robot labor utopia, except for this to come to be, it would seem the tptb would want to cull the herd first.
The level of people's awarness and conscience for the most part they do not understand, the masses must be lowered in numbers to to be able to educate them to a higher level of awareness. I'll drink to that give everyone a beer, and a burger. Hell give um two pilgrim.
I myself am not in favor of this culling, but if you notice in the utopian Zeiltgeist, there seems to be a lack of a lot of people.

As for the robots, they already have robot factories, with robots making robots, few at the most people.

And in this end stage of things that could occur, the robot or electronic intelligence, could be the end or near end intention, before final end in a pure itelligence to end all. A Main Frame so Big it does not even exist in the normal sense of existance because it is ingrained into everything to begin with.

Well this will not happen for tens of trillions of years the way eye see it, so maybe it is bettter to live in the here and now like that Zeiltgeist fellow said in the begining of the first one.

It is said that infinity equals two googolplexs, by the great minds on Earth.
If so then, two googolplexs + one would be an impossible number, but how could it be impossible?


[edit on 8-11-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

reply to post by tgidkp
 

Originally posted by tgidkp
since you went to such a great effort to put this together, i would be happy to give this the exploration and feedback it deserves.

i will need to take some time to roll it around for a while.


The more feedback the better.



could you please provide higher resolution diagrams? i am gonna go blind looking at that teeny print.


As requested! Double the resolution (1541 x 2032)

  1. Four seasons of scarcity & sentience - primary graph
  2. Four seasons of scarcity & sentience - addendum


EDIT TO ADD: i authored a thread about scarcity once. take a look at it HERE.


One thing that greatly surprised me about the graph is it has a number of tie-ins with creation myths. What do I make of this? I'm not sure, but it makes me all the more intrigued.

Your point about desire is a good one.


importantly, there is a pre-condition scarcity: desire.

However, ultimately there's a more abstract concept than "desire" and that's choice. The reason I like the word "exigency" (n. a case or situation that demands prompt action or remedy) is because it represents two sides of a bigger idea:
  1. life as a fight against nature
    and,
  2. life as a fight against choice / desire.

The fight against choice is a fight against "choice without consequence."

One thing I should also note is there's a component of the graph that isn't present in the original post. When you extend the notion of 2D scarcity into a 3D volume a new axis emerges — consequence.

The graph as presented in the original post shows a tilt or "consequence" of 0.


by seeking after only those things which you percieve to be "good", you set up the very dichotomy which the principle of scarcity depends upon. this is called: desire, A.K.A. "partaking of the fruit..."


This is the notion of a consequence of something that isn't at rest (or at 0). Leading me to some very interesting thoughts about the "Scientism universe" as seen in Fig. 3.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by asala]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This has been a very interesting read. Thanks to the author for such a wonderful thread. I have also found many of the responses to be fantastic as well. One of the better threads I have read on this site.



In the end, this boils down to one thing in my mind. Ironically it is a question we deal with a lot on these boards, it seems. Will people wake up to this before it is too late? I mean, we already have the potential for a type 1 civilization, but we are not pursuing it due to capitalistic greed.

It is a very, very powerful system that is working to stunt any growth as a society in any way that is not bent on control of a caste system where scarcity is generated through means whose end results in serfdom.

Even if this graph is an accurate representation of ideal societal evolution, much needs to change in order for it to ever be implemented here. And quite honestly, I"m not so sure that people can produce this shift alone. I'm almost certain it would require some sort of outside interference.
IMO.

But hey, here's to hoping.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
I'm enjoying this thread very much, I just kind of find it funny the author of this concept to say it is possible this is first occurance of the universe and something about asending to become gods, and make new universes. I just thought that was kind of funny.
It just seems for him to say that, he is missing some some vital points in the depth of the concept.

Here is interest link M.C. Escher, wacth it go round where it stops nobody knows. www.3quarks.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
I'm enjoying this thread very much, I just kind of find it funny the author of this concept to say it is possible this is first occurance of the universe and something about asending to become gods, and make new universes. I just thought that was kind of funny.
It just seems for him to say that, he is missing some some vital points in the depth of the concept.


As a rule I only say what I can demonstrate. Other insights I have about this concept are sadly mine alone until I can better formalize them. If I were to divulge the entirety of the epiphany I'd either be institutionalized or ignored and labeled a nut-job.

Thankfully I have a small degree of aptitude with math. So hopefully I can make headway rationalizing all these thoughts that way. Until then I'll continue to build evidence to better back up what's brewing in my head.


Here is interest link M.C. Escher, wacth it go round where it stops nobody knows. www.3quarks.com...


Fractal / recursive images are always fun.

Here's an image that illustrates the rather compelling concept of dimensionality as a sort-of "holding-hands."



Meaning any N-th dimension requires the (N-1)th dimension and the (N+1) dimension to exist implying an infinite series. So, in the image, consider the last bulb as a sort of formative process towards creating the next. The space the bulbs reside in is an infinite volume, which goes to the theory that some infinities are larger than others.

If you can understand the image you're half-way to understanding what's happening.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
I was not trying to be over critical of this concept, and was unaware you were author. Saw some one else's name thought you were quoting some one else's thought's ,ideals.
I myself do not really know anything, theory, ideals, the truth is the only solid thing that one could grasp on to and have a good go at it. But even that kind of falls to the way side when you start to dwell in the real depth of things, nothing is right nothing is wrong, except by perspective.
One of the statements I made, was seemed reinforce by you once having full understanding of time, time would cease to exist, at least as we view time.
So one could almost say time is noexistant by perspective.
Hence, how could any thing be first or last in reguard to time, when by perspective time is none existant, as you say omnipresent.

One would have to be able to see past the infinite universe, and past the finite universe.

I really like your thread.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Xtraeme
 
I was not trying to be over critical of this concept, and was unaware you were author. Saw some one else's name thought you were quoting some one else's thought's ,ideals.


In some ways I wish this was someone else's idea. Then I wouldn't feel such a strong need to explain this to people.


I myself do not really know anything, theory, ideals, the truth is the only solid thing that one could grasp on to and have a good go at it. But even that kind of falls to the way side when you start to dwell in the real depth of things, nothing is right nothing is wrong, except by perspective.
One of the statements I made, was seemed reinforce by you once having full understanding of time, time would cease to exist, at least as we view time.
So one could almost say time is noexistant by perspective.
Hence, how could any thing be first or last in reguard to time, when by perspective time is none existant, as you say omnipresent.

One would have to be able to see past the infinite universe, and past the finite universe.


Basically everything you see in the graph, all the notions and descriptions as I've written about them occur to me as math. This may have something to do with the fact that I'm a synesthete, who knows, but it's not hard to understand infinite concepts or even the idea of 0 if you understand that all things represent all parts of all other things. It seems people have such a hard time grasping 0 in math because fundamentally we don't recognize there are different types of 0 (much the same as there are different types of infinity).

Let me elaborate ...

People ascribe God with the properties the beginning, all powerful (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient), and the end. 0 fundamentally represents these principles.

The simplest way to understand this is to have a grasp of the multiplicative inverse of 0. The multiplicative inverse of 2 is 1/2. The multiplicative inverse of 0 isn't complex infinity it's all Reals.

I know this is a big claim, but consider a circle is a form of infinity in that it has no beginning and no end. Even it's circumference reflects this concept in the sense that Pi is transcendental and has no known pattern not even in its continued fraction form. From this we can say a circle is a finite recurrence of infinity.

If you take a circle and separate it into it's two constituent pieces (cosine and sine) and then set the two as a ratio of each other we form the tangent function (sine / cosine). Observing the convergence of the opposite to the adjacent over a single period (0 to pi) we see the tangent function goes from 0 to +complex infinity on the left of (pi / 2) to -negative complex infinity to 0 on the right. What this shows is that dividing by 0 or approaching nothingness pulls out all parts of all numbers over a single phase (which makes sense when viewed under the lense of Lim x->inf 1/x = 0 and heck it even makes sense in terms of the Heisenberg-uncertainty principle).



No number is duplicated in the y (other than 0) along the single phase from 0 to pi. Yet amazingly all Reals are generated as these two waveforms converge towards and away from each other.



This can be further seen by looking at the additive identity.

Consider that a + 0 = a - 0. This is obviously the same as a = a or simply a. Implying we can remove (or cancel) the 0, + & - because 0 (as the additive identity) is fundamentally reflected as a root of 'a' for all Real's.

Stop for a moment and seriously reflect on this.

The reason we can pull out +0 or -0 from any given Real is because it's fundamentally implied as a constituent part of any and all numbers. Much the same that 1 is a part of all numbers (a * 1 = a / 1) even 0. Thus suggesting even nothing (or 0) has at a minimum 1 part (0/1 = 0).

There's a way to express this idea of the additive identity symbolically:

a + b = a - b implies (or =>),
a + 2b = a =>
2b = a - a =>

b = (a - a) / 2
= a(1 - 1) / 2
= 0

Now lets solve for 2 as seen in the above expression.

2 = (a - a) / b

Think about that! b = 0. This formula says that 2 = (a - a) / 0. The way we usually handle this is by saying any divide by zero is indeterminate, but for (a + b) = (a - b), 2 must be equal to (a - a) / 0. The only way to make this work in any currently understood way is to view the operation thusly:

2 = a(1-1) / 0 = indeterminate =>
2 = [a * (1-1)] / [1 * (0)] =>
2 = a / 1

Because (C * y / D * y) = C / D. Put another way the 0's cancel each other only leaving 'a' divided by 1. However this is also confusing because 'a' is supposed to be free to equal any given 'x' from -infinity to +infinity. However if we solve for 'a' what do we see?

a - b = a + b =>
a = a+2b =>
a = a + 0

__or__

a - a = 2b =>
a(1-1) = 2b =>
a = 2b / (1-1) = indeterminate

Again using the same technique a = 2(0) / (1-1) => a = 2*c / 1*c (where c = 0) => a = 2. Making the whole thing work, but not freeing 'a'.

So curiously we can say a = 2 = indeterminate and 'a' equals any given Real because all Reals satisfy 'a' where 0 = (a - a) / 2.

What this really suggests is that 0 has at a minimum 2 parts. Incredibly it's easy to see why this is. When I say: a + 0 = a - 0, what I'm showing is that the two parts of 0 are the + and - being canceled out. So 0 is fundamentally representative of the culmination of both + & -. Put another way when you split 0 you generate all +'s and all -'s. Which makes sense when you look at the Cartesian plane.



The whole graph is centered on 0 and all positives are divided on to one-half away from the negative. If you were to fold the two planes on to each other you would collapse 2d-space down to 1-dim space and then folding 1-dim space on itself would result in 0-dim space - a single point of zero magnitude.

It also makes sense physically in that everything in reality is composed of + and - parts. Unless they're neutral and they've come to rest, but even then there are anti-particles which seem to reflect another axis where further cancelation occurs.

Thus 0 reflects:
  1. the beginning (intuitively all things start as nothing)
  2. all powerful
    1. omnipotent -- (it can obliterate any number a * 0 = 0 or divide out all the parts of something Lim x->infinity 1/x = 0)
    2. omnipresent -- (a+0 = a, meaning 0 is in all things)
    3. omniscient -- (2 = (a-a)/0 or (a-a)/((a-a)/((a-a)/...)), meaning 0 fundamentally seems to encapsulate the concept of all duality recursively on and on)

  3. and the end (inverse of 0 is all values out to complex infinity or omega, or as expressed in Trig at the end of a period: Tan[pi] = 0).

0 is God.



I really like your thread.


Thank you. I hope it helps you gain a better understanding of things.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   


0 is God.




The Sum Of All Things 0.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist


0 is God.


The Sum Of All Things 0.


The sum of all things is a very special version of 0, if you follow the logic in the above post, it represents 0_infinity (where the underscore means subscript). More to the point:

  1. 0_infinity represents Omega
  2. 0_0 represents Alpha


[edit on 9-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   


The sum of all things is a very special version of 0, if you follow the logic in the above post, it represents 0_infinity.



I'm fond of da Vinci the same as I am Marko Rodin. The math is a constant now... If you want a quick summary, scan through my page (view all blogs).



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Hmm..how about that saying "all is one"

You can also extract one from everything...That's why one and zero always have been of such an importance to me as a+0=a and a*1=a and they both felt like some sort of mark...A constant beyond which everything shifts, so like the interior and exterior perception of the world, everything between 0 and 1 constitute fractions and from one oneward you have the axiom for the natural numbers, every natural numbers has a successor...
a+0=a*1
a(1+0)=a*1
a(0(indeterminate+(all reals?))=a*1
0(indeterminate+(all reals?))=1
So wouldn't indeterminate constitute infinity whereas all reals describes any real so basically one is incountable (the reals) and the other is the set of all ordinaries? You know you get it all together, it's kinda weird for me

I have a question about a statement Xtraeme made about the value assigned to metals.. You said the cash flow only increased as the supply of a good increases!



But, it is the lack of knowledge which creates time to begin with. Meaning, if all is known and you were truly omnipotent and such, then time does not exist. Because then you would be 100% in knowledge, and nothing new could happen. As nothing new could happen, nothing could change, and time does not exist.

Einstein hits on this with relativity. The concept of a "time line" for example, is to take what is known and view it all at once. So, you have to start looking at the universe beyond "time". Time is merely an illusion brought forth as a result of limited knowledge. You are recognizing this as a scarcity.

I don't think you actually mean ..."novelty" but rather what is unbeknowest to man? You know either you never will become omniscient...if you do, everything should be known to you but sometimes a truth cannot be expressed under certain conditions...Such as when you make a statement about a system while operating inside that system. Why do we speak of the size of universe when we're told, at the time of the big bang it was the size of an atom? How do you possibly measure that unless assuming other universes and thus maybe realities outside our own??
So what if there is "all truth" but once you go on to explore and expand to the sum of all things in the universe then you become that system and you get a liar paradoxon...For example you might look at the statement G: "once G is spoken it is false that G is unspoken." So G is probably a truth. But you cannot tell anybody about it verbally because when you cite "G" you break the condition of silence which composes the core of its truthhood!
This is something you should be able to attribute to, according to Kurz Gödel, any set of axioms (or postulations more philosophically speaking) capable of producing arithmetics. And apparently to some here, the universe can be reduced to a question of number theory so maybe you can do something with that. If reality is a computer, then according to this austrian mathematician, there must be at least one statement that cannot be disproved nor proven within our reality!

About time..It takes infinitely until something happens that is impossible as with ever increasing improbability, the number of events and therefore time (maybe by "set of events" you can apply ordinals to time which would make it a little bit easier to define mathematically) increase proportionally. So if according to you nothing "new" or novel happens, this would mean that everything already has happened...So everything means "this plus what I left out" and this could only happen in infinity, which you won't reach...

Time is our observation of a sequence of events.. As this constitutes a set, you must be able to apply ordinals to all of its elements...And you're not forced into limited knowledge, you simply need to be able to count all the elements. But it doesn't make any difference because in either way they must be finite, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it right now.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
0 is God.


Whereas, 0 exists within Mathematics.

Therefore, Mathematics is God.

Whereas, 0 is God is true and Mathematics is God is true

Therefore, God is a direction based on a dimension of two truths.

Been there done did.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Xtraeme
0 is God.


Whereas, 0 exists within Mathematics.

Therefore, Mathematics is God.

Whereas, 0 is God is true and Mathematics is God is true

Therefore, God is a direction based on a dimension of two truths.

Been there done did.


I would say 0 is God and mathematics has the capability of representing all possibilities. Though since all things in math are constituent pieces of 0 I can understand why you might see mathematics as also then representing this same notion of 0 / God.

Even though all things can be seen to have common elements it doesn't mean they don't have uniqueness across time & space. For instance:

In base 10:
5 * 10^-1 = .5

In base 16:
8 * 16^-1 = .5

Meaning that 5 is to 1/2 as 8 is to 1/2 depending on the perspective of which number-base is in use.

Does that mean 8 is 1/2 (8 is directly half of 16)? Is 5 fundamentally 1/2 (consider 5 is one half of ten)? A number of people when looking at something like the Golden Ratio:

(1+Sqrt(5)) / 2 make this association, if only because it represents 1 part of 1 part of 1 part, etc.

I would say 5 is fundamentally unique, but at the same time inherits all the properties of the numbers that come before and immediately after it. Just the same as you're fundamentally a product of your mother & father, strongly sharing many characteristics, while also having the same properties, but to a lesser degree, that all other humans & living creatures contain.

Ultimately I think it's important to make these careful distinctions otherwise we blur everything together and say, "all is the same" which is somewhat true in the sense that we're all made up of electrons, protons, leptons, etc, but it ignores the fact that we're arranged in different ordinalities and have different cardinalities in terms of the quantity of components that make up our total being.

This is what I commonly refer to quantitating the qualitative.

Put another way A = A (quantitatively), but this does not necessarily mean A = A (qualitatively) or put another A != A because A_l != A_r (since the left is a distinctly different element from the right)

To better understand this consider that the numerical identity of the equality operator is any given 'x'. Thus to cancel we remove the A. So in other words if I have, A = A, I can simply state A. So cancellation is performed by removing the left or right-hand equivalent *and* the equality operator.

Evaluating the opposite statement, A != A, simply suggests "non-existence." So cancellation is performed by removing the entire phrase (or stating 0 / the null-set).

Another way to think of this is to see that dealing with an inequality on the same constant suggests there's a qualitative difference on the quantitative term. Or put another way A = A_l = A_r = 1. Which is to say the leading terms (A) is equal to 1 between several quantitatively equal objects. The way to distinguish then between them is by their perceptual differences (like one is on the left and another is on the right).

For a concrete understanding of this imagine an element of hydrogen in a 3D volume. Only one instance of hydrogen can occupy a discrete unit of time-space. Even though the properties of two hydrogen atoms are equal they are distinctly different in the sense that they *must* exist as fundamentally different copies _of_ hydrogen. Expressed in quantitative terms we could view hydrogen as 1, like so:

A = 1
A_l = 1
A_r = 1

Where _l and _r represents say a time-space difference:

l = 2
r = 3

The trick is to find an occasion where quantitatively and using the reflexive principle the operation balances.

A_l / A_r = A_r / A_l (quantitatively) =>

1 / 1 = 1 / 1

To evaluate this qualitatively you look for cancellation of equality on the quantitative term:

A_l / A_r != A_r / A_l =>

Then to evaluate it qualitatively each components subscript is given a value / name. If the two sides don't balance using subscripts as values then they are not qualitatively the same.

l / r != r / l =>

2 / 3 != 3 / 2

However,

A_l / A_r = A_l / A_r =>

l / r = l / r =>

2 / 3 = 2 / 3

So while something can be quantitatively equal it can also not be qualitatively equal.

Thus 1 = 1 and 1 != 1, or put another way 1 = 0. Likewise, 2 = 2 (quantitatively) and 2 != 2 (qualitatively), or put another way 2 = 0 (qualitatively)

So on and so forth. I've taken to calling A != A the Qualitative axiom (so as to not collide with the concept of the irreflexive binary relation)

I say 2 = 0 because the opposite of zero isn't complex infinity or undefined. The opposite of zero is all unique instances bounded by infinity. If you don't see this intuitively I encourage you to read this post.

Another way to view this set relation of 2 != 2 (qualitatively) is that the equality for each of the unique instances for each qualitative term will always fundamentally be different from the other. Which is why 2 = 0, because 2 equals nothing but that unique *instance* of itself across time & space. I like to refer to this type of 0, as related to 2, as a 0_2 or long-hand 0_2_u.

So more correctly, rather than saying 2 = 0, I usually prefer to express this relation as 2 = 0_2_u. Which represents a unique instance from the set of values 0 produces.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I would say 0 is God and mathematics has the capability of representing all possibilities. Though since all things in math are constituent pieces of 0 I can understand why you might see mathematics as also then representing this same notion of 0 / God.


The infinite represents all possibilities. What you claimed above is to say that mathematics is a subset of the infinite, and then 0 is a subset of that. This is a reflexive perspective of what you stated, and I think you can see how it doesn't appear the same.



Even though all things can be seen to have common elements it doesn't mean they don't have uniqueness across time & space. For instance:

...


I think you just tried to redefine individuality.



This is what I commonly refer to quantitating the qualitative.

...


If you think that quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum physics, then that explain why you would carry-on as above. It would be easier if you simple say quantum physics is not real (i.e. quantum particles don't exist), and then see quantum physics as a subset of quantum mechanics. I and many others won't see you as a "nut-job" if you do. It is a fact that not everybody is able to see through quantizations or even understand it beyond simple compression/atomic-theory.



For a concrete understanding of this imagine an element of hydrogen in a 3D volume. Only one instance of hydrogen can occupy a discrete unit of time-space. Even though the properties of two hydrogen atoms are equal they are distinctly different in the sense that they *must* exist as fundamentally different copies _of_ hydrogen.


I think this part was better covered, in a strict mathematical style, in this thread over here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scale doesn't negate uniqueness/individuality.


[edit on 9-11-2009 by dzonatas]

[edit on 9-11-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I would say 0 is God and mathematics has the capability of representing all possibilities. Though since all things in math are constituent pieces of 0 I can understand why you might see mathematics as also then representing this same notion of 0 / God.

The infinite represents all possibilities. What you claimed above is to say that mathematics is a subset of the infinite, and then 0 is a subset of that. This is a reflexive perspective of what you stated, and I think you can see how it doesn't appear the same.


I think this is why Georg Cantor had such a difficult time explaining his ideas to people. Your appraisal is that all possibilities are represented through infinity. This is an imminently reasonable statement.

However mathematically infinite objects don't always behave intuitively. Take for instance this mathematical analogy that attempts to explain the Banachi-Tarski paradox to the average person:


[G]iven N, the (infinitely large) set containing all the integers, we can split them up into two sets, E containing all the even integers, and F containing all the odd integers. Are E and F each smaller than N, the set of all integers? Intuitively, it appears to be so; however, I will convince you that they are, in fact, the same size. First, we take E, and rename each member of E so that a number x is renamed to x divided by two. What do we get? We now find that E=N. Similarly, we take each member y from F, and rename y to (y-1)/2. Whoopie, we also find that F=N. We have just duplicated the set of integers using nothing more than just the original integers.(1)

Fundamentally there are different types of infinity. This doesn't even really need to be argued as it's already accepted by set-theorists. It's why we have complex infinity, directed infinity, countably infinite sets, uncountable sets, small infinity / big infinity, etc.


So by saying, "mathematics has the capability of representing all possibilities" I'm not saying that it's a subset of the infinite. I'm saying that mathematics fundamentally represents the universal set as an equality.

When I said Omega represents 0_infinity, I should have been more explicit and said the type of infinity I was referring to was the universal set.

As to your point about 0 being a subset of infinity and therefore how can 0 (or God) be less than infinity? This is the best I think I can explain it. In a normal binary relation obviously n+infinity > n. However, much to your point at the end of your post you said:


Scale doesn't negate uniqueness/individuality.


What I'm trying to show is that all properties exist in all things, but those things exist as fundamentally unique entities. So there exists a copy of the universal set, recursively, inside of 0. Furthermore if you understand the multiplicative inverse of 0 you then see how it more or less "explodes out" to create the larger set.

Then you might ask, so how can the universal set be universal if it's a subset of itself?

This is referred to as Russell's paradox.

This isn't even really that insane in the sense that when we say 0.5 what I'm showing is that 5 fundamentally exists as a component of 0 or as the conjugate of 5.

Which is why I bothered to make the point in the original post that:

5 * 10^0 = 5
5 * 10^-1 = .5

These are both "types of 5" just at different scales.

This is intriguing because it suggests there is an order to all things and mathematicians are seeing this is fundamentally true through analysis of prime distribution:


If Riemann’s discovery was right, it would imply that nature had distributed the primes as fairly as possible. It would mean that the primes behave rather like the random molecules of gas in a room: Although you might not know quite where each molecule is, you can be sure that there won’t be a vacuum at one corner and a concentration of molecules at the other.(2)

So I only nit-pick and say that Mathematics is somewhat different than 0 (or God) because fundamentally inside of it are pieces that represent other things (at different scales) that aren't wholly 0 (or God).





Even though all things can be seen to have common elements it doesn't mean they don't have uniqueness across time & space. For instance:
...

I think you just tried to redefine individuality.


Heh, not redefine, just a rewording to make it conform better to the idea as I'm attempting to present it.




This is what I commonly refer to quantitating the qualitative.
...

If you think that quantum mechanics is a subset of quantum physics, then that explain why you would carry-on as above. It would be easier if you simple say quantum physics is not real (i.e. quantum particles don't exist), and then see quantum physics as a subset of quantum mechanics. I and many others won't see you as a "nut-job" if you do. It is a fact that not everybody is able to see through quantizations or even understand it beyond simple compression/atomic-theory.


Are you talking in the abstract or the concrete? If you're talking in the concrete, I most certainly agree quantum / virtual particles exist. The evidence is overwhelming.

If you're talking in the abstract it sounds like your take here is to look at what I said in terms of the inheritance structure by determining which is the successor / predecessor (ie/ quantum mechanics as a set of quantum physics vs. quantum physics subset of quantum mechanics)?

Assuming I'm right in understanding you, I actually attempted to analyze this notion of what "equality" is in comparison to "inequality" in the sense of which precedes the other. For instance we know addition and subtraction precede multiplication and division. Likewise multiplication and division precedes exponentiation and logarithms.

So I wondered does equality precede inequality or the other way around? Or are they fundamentally on a similar level? Ultimately I determined that they're an inherent property of any given element.

One way to evaluate the "level" or precedence of a given operation is to understand the operations numerical identity. The additive identity is 0. The multiplicative identity is 1. The logarithmic identity is Euler's E.

So I asked myself what's the identity of the equality operator? That was fairly simple to answer, any given complex number or everything in the universal set. Then I asked myself what's the identity of the inequality operator for x? The answer was the irreflexive binary relation set or all complex numbers where C-{x}.

This suggests they're not on the same level and one comes before the other.

So for example (1 = 1) + (3 = 3) * (4 = 4) ^ (2 = 2) results in (48 = 48) or just 48 reflexively. The rules of PEMDAS cause us to evaluate exponentiation / logarithms first, multiplication / division second, addition / subtraction third. If we were to evaluate the equality of any given term to itself that would rewrite the PEMDAS rules as PREMDAS, where R means reflexivity because obviously (1 != 1) + (3 = 3) * (4 = 4) ^ (2 = 2) is not 48.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   



For a concrete understanding of this imagine an element of hydrogen in a 3D volume. Only one instance of hydrogen can occupy a discrete unit of time-space. Even though the properties of two hydrogen atoms are equal they are distinctly different in the sense that they *must* exist as fundamentally different copies _of_ hydrogen.


I think this part was better covered, in a strict mathematical style, in this thread over here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



I read that thread awhile back, but thank you for passing it along!
It was interesting to see someone apply a scaling-factor to relate micro to macro objects.

However this notion of A = A (quantitatively), but A != A (qualitatively) doesn't seem to have any bearing on the idea as presented in that other thread; or at least not as far as I can tell.
Then again I'm still having a hell of a time trying to understand A != A beyond it showing that underlying all objects is some uniquifying element that always allows it to be further differentiated, so it can eventually be related to nothing, not even itself.

This goes to the idea that physically I can have no speed if there is no other mass relative to me. Much the same there is no me (happy, joyful, or anything in between) without things external to myself. So how can I relate to myself if I'm wholly differentiated from all things?

Until I can better get my arms around this beast, I'll probably refrain from commenting further because it seems I've already caused more confusion than clarity and that's not my intent.


Scale doesn't negate uniqueness/individuality.

I definitely agree! Any arbitrary scaling-factor causes uniqueness, or more abstractly any translation whatsoever results in a new unique thing.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I tried to respond to your private message, but apparently I do not have enough posts yet. I will just post my reply here.

1. I would like to comment that you were dead-on in your assessment that I had not given enough attention to the figures. I was pressed for time, so I primarily focused on a response to the prose section. Now that the conversation has begun, I can dedicate some more time to understanding your system.

2. I think, for the sake of clarity, it might be a good idea to explain the concepts of good, exigency, value, and consequence in greater detail. While I understand these concepts well enough, the trouble I am having is that you have a very nuanced and technical understanding of these terms, especially as they are defined at 1, 0, and -1. Critical terminology ought to be afforded more robust definitions.

3. I am a philosopher by discipline. Although I have studied more mathematics than most, the my education ends with calculus. So you might say that we speak different languages. Fortunately, I do understand logic very well, so there may be some overlap. Nevertheless, because I am a (systematic) philosopher by discipline, I believe that I can be of some genuine assistance to you both in disseminating it and in understanding it. For this reason, I would like to find some way that we can correspond extensively concerning this theory. Email will suffice (you can U2U your addy). We can also use a more rapid messaging system, if you like.

So, please, let us converse freely -- sanity be damned.

4. I've noticed your elaborations concerning the wonders of 0 and infinity. Mathematical notions such as these are certainly complex, but it would be well not to allow oneself to get lost in them. In any language that we speak, including mathematics, it is very important to always remember that languages are invented. The purpose for the invention that we call language is to describe experience. But because languages are invented, they are subject to the same design flaws that all human inventions seem to have; consequently, every language will to distort the very experience it purports to describe, even mathematics.

Your mathematical gymnastics with the number 0 remind me of some logical gymnastics that I, myself, have taken part in. Consider the Liar's Paradox: "This sentence is false." Every attempt to make logical sense of the liar's sentence, in my experience, has been a failure. My conclusion is that attempting to understand the sentence logically is a waste of time, for this understanding cannot be had. I suggest to you that the same might be true of the "numbers" 0 and infinity. I'm not saying that you should not dig deeply. What I'm saying is that you are standing on quicksand.

So let us use the concepts in those ways that we can, and relieve ourselves of them when they plague our understanding. Understanding is an experience, not something that can be spoken in a language.

5. The opposite of love is not hate. Hate is a perversion of love. In love, I concerning myself with what is good for the other; whereas, in hate, I concern myself with what is bad for the other, as if it is good for myself. The true dichotomy, here, is love of other versus love of self: egoism vs. altruism. It is this point that I have been attempting to stress to you, because I believe that it is distinctly lacking in your system, although not fatally.

So I would say that the reason for natural exigency is not that we have chosen to hate. Rather, it is that we have perverted love by failing to understand that it is a dichotomous concept. People do not choose to hate: they are brought to hatred because they are brought to hatred because they are confused and do know how to escape the confusion. The precondition for choice is self-awareness.






top topics



 
120
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join