It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Einsteins last years with Godel were ignored for 50 years, UNTIL NOW! We still stand at the frontier

page: 5
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I had to look that up. And I understand the definition of what a Cantor set is and that is uncountable.
So extending it into 3-dimensions seems logical.

The Menger Sponge something I've never heard of but can totally understand it in terms of surface area and volume and as an extension to the Cantor set.

Thanks for posting this!




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
THANK YOU!!!!!



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Virtruvian
 


Perhaps, by reduction, we could approach an understanding of Pi raised to the power of Pi.

Pi equals a number slightly bigger than three. More accurately, approximately 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

Therefore Pi ^ Pi = 36.462159607207911770990826022692



Not sure what you are getting at, doesn't equal infinity.
edit on 8/7/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


I don't even know if you would end up reading this reply ... Probably there would be 8 or 10 pages of ATS rants and raves posts by now ... Not to say there won't be any intelligent and thoughtful responses ... But here's the simple answer ..

Mind can never overcome or supersede mind .. Thoughts can never go beyond thoughts.. simply because thought is thought, and not something that is other than thought ...

Consciousness definitely precedes and succeeds every thought... Or awareness precedes and succeeds every thought .. And one can easily experience shifts in consciousness by pursuing a spiritual path .. However, spiritual path is a loaded word .. And because of that reason, I can't reply along those lines here ...

You know what .. Like you said .. there is no other way but higher states of consciousness .. Once there is a critical mass of people, who have experienced higher states of consciousness, and can translate that into daily lives, that would be the only way for one to go beyond the point where Godel, Cantor, and Turing failed... They were trying to use mind to conquer mind .. Mind is mind.. It cannot conquer itself .. Hence it is necessary to expand our consciousness / awareness , and to experience a purer state of consciousness ( rather than using the word higher ) ..

Sometimes it requires one who experienced purest state of consciousness to those who seek it .. Some of you may get what I am trying to speak here .. message for them: feel free to pm me to know one who can help you along the way ... And this one is from experience ..



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 



Thank you for the amazing work you did.


I had known about Turing due to WW2 studies...and the tragedy of his demise.

Ok. At the time, yeah, being gay in security circles wasnt kosher because of blackmail. I get that.

Chemical castration? Really? Yeah, I find being gay peculiar but not evil...damn sure not to THAT level!

These guys were some of the last "true" scientists. I've spoken with so called PHd's and I (having no letters after my name...or multiple "0's" in my bank account ) had to remind THEM about scientific method!
I REALLY pissed one lady off but good.

She was conducting an experiment on a subject that was in a COMPLETELY alien environment with FAR too much extraneous stimuli.....and wondering why results were skewed. I called her on it!

Educated idiots.

I swear that what passes for "scientific" research nowadays is only in relation to the number of digits in the payoff or the amount of control given to higher ups.

The gentlemen in your thread were the real thing. It will be nice to see that return.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Brilliant. I enjoyed that a lot. We may never solve the riddle of uncertainty, but one thing I think IS certain: we will never stop trying.

S&F



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 





Godel took Occams Razor and sharpened it with the power of his mind.


I invite you to take an in-depth look into the definitions for both image and frontier as they apply to mathematics.


Now that was an invitation to a place I could happily spend the rest of my days.

Thanks for showing you comprehended my point

Thanks for the invite, I'll be on the frontier shortly, after I've got a few more people to join along


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
edit on 8-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)



Just goes to prove "one-liners" are where it's at!
Let's keep after it... I figured this year would be an appropriate time. Seems everything else has come to a head.




If travel is searching,
And home what's been found...

I'm not stopping.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 



The question is, how is it that Kurt Gödel can believe that God is not malicious? That it’s all understandable? Because Gödel is the man who has proved that some things cannot be proven logically and rationally. So surely God must be malicious? The way he gets out of it is that Gödel, like Einstein, believes deeply in Intuition - That we can know things outside of logic, maths and computation; because we just intuit them. And they both believed this, because they both felt it. They have both had their moments of intuition, moments of sudden conceptual realisation that were by far more than just chance.


Aha the magic bullet...that for me is it, what god is, at least on one level, the source of our intuition and the reason why we the world is better understood by the creative minds (unbound) than those restricted by regime and institutional order.

Einstein plagiarised a lot of work, sure, but that was his genius, he was able to go outside the realms of convention and bring those disparate themes together.

It's interesting to note about Turing...after all, the machines that we so easily seem to submit to these days came from the minds of men, that should be noted.

We give so much value to these LED screens, plastic cases and digital circuitry not realising that what we hold in our hands amounts to no more than 10% of what our mind is capable of i.e. the technology we see around is is a small reflection of what we are truly capable of.

I am sure that's what Kurt Gödel saw in the moment between clarity and madness, something far more that we can access if we intuit ourselves to it.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dxdydz
reply to post by Americanist
 


I had to look that up. And I understand the definition of what a Cantor set is and that is uncountable.
So extending it into 3-dimensions seems logical.

The Menger Sponge something I've never heard of but can totally understand it in terms of surface area and volume and as an extension to the Cantor set.

Thanks for posting this!



Not much of a stretch now is it? Go ahead... Spin it.


Infinite-capacity wireless vortex beams carry 2.5 terabits per second

www.extremetech.com...


We are "digging" at the fabric of space-time (i.e. tunneling).

The school of thought behind it all:

wikischool.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   


He knew the truth. He was called mad.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


Great read. Thxs for engaging my mind.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


We should all be even half as mad as he is. We might actually distinguish ourselves as a species.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Hence Arithmetic is the source of that preestablished harmony between reality and language that we can not not believe after almost four centuries of astonishing achievements, but we must even say that, neither tendentially, syntactic representation can thoroughly mirror reality, become someway iconic. And this because it is marked in its basic principles with a preestablished disharmony, that is even its hidden evolutive principle. It plays the role of source of never ending paradoxes well recognizable ever since the beginning of formal thinking. Negation, truth and being ground an antinomical argument, from the “negative judgement paradox” (impossibility of asserting falsity), through the “liar paradox” (contradictory nature of self-asserting falsity), to set-theoretical paradoxes and to Gödel's and Tarski's limitative theorems.

Luigi Borzacchini, THE SOPHIST. GENESIS OF FORMAL THINKING IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND
MATHEMATICS. (Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Bari).

O.K. so there we have a professional mathematician acknowledging the unresolved logical paradoxes of Godel, Cantor, etc. but more so that such paradoxes create and are based on a "preestablished disharmony."

So consider the arguments about what is primary -- math or physics -- Paul Davies or John Wheeler, etc. -- this goes back to the mathematician of Eudoxus saying that semantics doesn't matter for the irrational number. As Bertrand Russell stated the "real numbers" are a "convenient fiction." So the basic issue is the "error of logical type" as Russell calls it -- with geometric length as physics and arithmetic distance as mathematics.

People assume this is not an issue because "science works" -- but for whom does it work? What kind of externalities are involved -- regarding other cultures and ecology, etc. Math is not "pure."

So then we have Godel:


According to my notes, Gödel’s response went as follows: It should be possible to form a complete theory of human behavior, i.e., to predict from the hereditary and environmental givens what a person will do. However, if a mischievous person learns of this theory, he can act in a way so as to negate it. Hence I conclude that such a theory exists, but that no mischievous person will learn of it. In the same way, time travel is possible, but no person will ever manage to kill his past self. Gödel laughed his laugh then, and concluded, The a priori is greatly neglected. Logic is very powerful. Apropos of the free will question, on another occasion he said: There is no contradiction between free will and knowing in advance precisely what one will do. If one knows oneself completely then this is the situation. One does not deliberately do the opposite of what one wants.581


“Conversations with Gödel”, in Rudy Rucker, Infinity and the Mind, Princeton University Press, 1995,
p. 168.

O.K. so basically the issue deals with quantum relativity -- the paradox of time travel with time dilation as the energy frequency increases.

People have comments for superconductors that it's a math infinity but not a physical infinity. But actually the quantum physics depends on the interpretation -- de Broglie argued that it is a real physical infinity as a superliminal pilot wave -- that then reverses in time.

So then consciousness at zero frequency has infinite phase that has to be converted to "physics" using technology. This is easily demonstrated in the quantum Zeno effect whereby time can slow down due to increase in frequency measurement -- so that the decay rate of radiation is slowed down -- or also there is then quantum entanglement in warm wet environments like brains of animals and in plants, etc.

So quantum biology can not be turned into technology but it has been proven to exist in reality.

So as Godel pointed out what time travels into the future or past is not the individual but rather impersonal consciousness without desire. So that this is not possible with technology - but it is possible with impersonal consciousness in the quantum realm of the brain and reality.

In other words the mathematical infinity becomes a physical reality but not through technology -- only through logic as the Logos, based on time-frequency uncertainty.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
The Certainity of the Uncertain

Logic had revealed the limitations of logic. The search for certainty had revealed uncertainty.

If certainity in the Universe existed why would there be a Universe to begin with?

With a God or Goddesses infinite wisdom of being the source of creation then if such certainity existed then do humans build and create?

Why do we necessitate ourselves with creating certainity from the uncertain of living in a building that protects us from the elements if we know that through a God or Goddesses protection we would remain dry?

If humanity is so certain in its uncertainity then why do gods exist at all?

The reason is the same for the Gods and Godesses as it is for humans. Both remain uncertain in their certainity of belief in knowledge.

Gods and Goddesses are infinite as is the human soul and knowledge itself as is the certainity of mathematics in being able to be applied to complete a certain amount of uncertainity.

For example: when the first human packed the first handfull of gunpoweder into a shell and lit the fuse what was happening in the humans mind?

Sure they could say for certain based upon their mathematical studies that they had done that cause A would create effect X....but the uncertainity of said mathematics could not be proved certain until the newly created rocket would function in the way that mathematics has said the rocket would.

Now lets fast forward to the modern day. Einstein said for CERTAIN without compromise that breaking the light speed barrier was not possible based upon the certainity of his mathematics.

It hasn't been five years yet since CERN broke EInsteins Certainity Law of Light Speed when a neutrino arrived ahead of a light photon thus proving Einsteins Certainity Law wrong and his mathematics proves that uncertainity still exists and that mathematical laws are not certainities but rather instead formulas that take uncertainity and make them merely a possible of continuing to be uncertain.

The only notion that exists in the Universe is the certaintiy of the uncertain.

Uncertaininty drives life in asking questions most of the out of the box. Questions that are uncertain to most which allows a new certainity paradox to be entered....a paradox that allows life to remain uncertain so that thought will continue to evolve.

If thought does not evolve then creation does not evolve. When creation ceases to exist the certainity of the life of the species becomes less and less as Death advances forward.

Even Gods and Godesses are uncertain about how the Universe came to be that like humans who could have been created the same question abounds in both minds?

If a god or goddess created me and I am able to create and such knowledge was gifted to me by such entities then where did such entities get their knowledge to create us? One must be created in order to .....

I am about to run out of laptop juice.....a certainity.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


Brilliant Read S&F, Mathematics will always try to answer the most important questions with logical reasoning related to standard models of research, instead of thinking outside of the box to more complex theories that require more research and understanding of the unknown.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
The "third rail" I've touched a couple times and can no longer turn off. I can only keep throwing debris on top of It so I can't see It any more, for a while. Then It burns through again. I've won in the end, it's only a matter of time before I can no longer lift the shovel.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

can you show me where we have ever in situ measured something with an infinite value?


Yes, all of the things I said. E.g., the conductivity of a superconductor is measured to be equal to infinity.


No it is not. It is utterly incorrect thinking. What you are doing here is entering in absurd philosophical domain that should be kept away from science. To make it clear to you, when there is no dirt on the floor that doesn't mean there is infinitely small quantity of dirt on the floor; it simply means: THERE IS NO DIRT ON THE FLOOR! In other words, conductivity of a superconductor is not equal to infinity, there is just NO resistance to the flaw of electrons in the material. Period. This is why it seems to you that you can grasp the concept of infinity - because you are not dealing with it AT ALL!

(EDIT:) To prove that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and that it has nothing to do with infinity, we can talk about conductivity and resistance in percentage. In your case, resistance is 0%, but conductivity is 100% and it cannot be any greater. When resistance is maximal or 100%, it would be a really stupid idea to think about it as infinite. Because it is finite (at least in this case). But, when we are talking about infinite distance, for example, we cannot give the percentage, get it? It would be absurd.
edit on 9-7-2012 by Tormund because: To clarify more...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tormund

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

can you show me where we have ever in situ measured something with an infinite value?


Yes, all of the things I said. E.g., the conductivity of a superconductor is measured to be equal to infinity.


No it is not. It is utterly incorrect thinking. What you are doing here is entering in absurd philosophical domain that should be kept away from science. (EDIT:) To prove that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and that it has nothing to do with infinity, we can talk about conductivity and resistance in percentage. In your case, resistance is 0%, but conductivity is 100% and it cannot be any greater. When resistance is maximal or 100%, it would be a really stupid idea to think about it as infinite. Because it is finite (at least in this case). But, when we are talking about infinite distance, for example, we cannot give the percentage, get it? It would be absurd.
edit on 9-7-2012 by Tormund because: To clarify more...


Lets go to Wiki - foa short discussion of the Meissner effect -
en.wikipedia.org...
In a weak applied field, a superconductor "expels" nearly all magnetic flux. It does this by setting up electric currents near its surface. The magnetic field of these surface currents cancels the applied magnetic field within the bulk of the superconductor. As the field expulsion, or cancellation, does not change with time, the currents producing this effect (called persistent currents) do not decay with time. Therefore the conductivity can be thought of as infinite: a superconductor.Near the surface, within a distance called the London penetration depth, the magnetic field is not completely cancelled. Each superconducting material has its own characteristic penetration depth.

Any perfect conductor will prevent any change to magnetic flux passing through its surface due to ordinary electromagnetic induction at zero resistance. The Meissner effect is distinct from this: when an ordinary conductor is cooled so that it makes the transition to a superconducting state in the presence of a constant applied magnetic field, the magnetic flux is expelled during the transition. This effect cannot be explained by infinite conductivity alone. Its explanation is more complex and was first given in the London equations by the brothers Fritz and Heinz London. It should thus be noted that the placement and subsequent levitation of a magnet above an already superconducting material does not demonstrate the Meissner effect, while an initially stationary magnet later being repelled by a superconductor as it is cooled through its critical temperature does.


edit on 9-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by Virtruvian
 

Perhaps, by reduction, we could approach an understanding of Pi raised to the power of Pi.
Pi equals a number slightly bigger than three. More accurately, approximately 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
Therefore Pi ^ Pi = 36.462159607207911770990826022692
Not sure what you are getting at, doesn't equal infinity.
edit on 8/7/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


I hope I am not wandering off topic in my response:
I actually wasn't "getting at" anything other than some input here with respect to the two equations that I had receved at the conclusion of a spiritual experience - i.e., a vision. No motive really.

I am having a little difficulty understanding how it is that you arrived at – Pi ^ Pi = 36.46215 from 3.14159. Please explain – Thank you.

Pi to the power of itself is infinite to the degree determined by the exponent (Pi): meaning – for me at least – that Pi to Pi is INFINITELY INFINITE, and perhaps that’s what the symbols that were presented to me in the vision were intended to represent.

We know that Pi is a transcendental number – and as such in an extension of the Lindeman Weierstrasse theorem. We also are aware of the fact that a transcendental number is a special kind of irrational number and that there are abundant proofs that all irrational numbers have infinite, non-recurring decimal representations.
This irrational number and its digits never repeat. In this sense (and in some others under discussion here) it is somewhat pathological and literally “drives people crazy” which allows it to qualify as a point of discussion in this thread.

The definition of Pi is remarkably simple. It is the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. To a few decimal places its value is 3.14159265. The numerical value of Pi is essentially infinite, in that no repeating pattern occurs or truncates at some point. In fact, computers are known to have calculated Pi to trillions of decimal places – with still no pattern in sight.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Tormund

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

can you show me where we have ever in situ measured something with an infinite value?


Yes, all of the things I said. E.g., the conductivity of a superconductor is measured to be equal to infinity.


No it is not. It is utterly incorrect thinking. What you are doing here is entering in absurd philosophical domain that should be kept away from science.


Therefore the conductivity can be thought of as infinite: a superconductor.


I would say: Therefore the conductivity of such material can be thought of as infinitely close to perfect conductivity: a superconductor. In real world, there is nothing more infinite about conductivity then about anything else. Infinite conductivity is absurd concept because in theory we can have a perfect material which has absolute, defined, FINITE, 100% conductivity; zero resistivity. In this case, dividing by zero is completely meaningless. Because, at the end of this "infinity" lies a perfect conductivity.

And if we accept that conductivity can be infinite, in translation it means that it can only be infinitely close to absolute conductivity, but our mind tells us different story for it can imagine this not to be true; in our minds there is perfectly conductive material. So, at least in theory, no infinity here, just poorly constructed scientific concept. So at best, it is finite infinity, aka absurdity. Science misuses the term INFINITE big time.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join