Deeper than primes - Continuation

[keyfeatures]

Here btw is an interesting link on mathematics as language.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=161513&sectioncode=1

It can be seen how the building blocks of mathematical descriptors (as all language) are based on our observer position in the universe. All be they less 'fuzzy' than natural language. To then check the correctness of mathematics by correlating it back with our observations of the physical universe is simple confirmation bias. To check it within itself simply increasing the complexity of the system. Where mathematics and physical observation don't work (provide answers), we ignore the problems of non-verification and simply leave a solution to future discovery.

 

[keyfeatures]

There is a lot of interest in that link but this particularly struck me as relevant;

The famous Indian genius Ramanujan frequently produced marvellous formulae by some unknown mental process which could neither be described nor repeated. I think Connes would accept that such formulae do not become an accepted part of mathematics until others have understood them and verified their validity.

 

[jsfisher]

There is a lot of interest in that link but this particularly struck me as relevant;

The famous Indian genius Ramanujan frequently produced marvellous formulae by some unknown mental process which could neither be described nor repeated. I think Connes would accept that such formulae do not become an accepted part of mathematics until others have understood them and verified their validity.

In what way is it relevant? What about the paragraph surprises or inspires you? Nothing proffered in Mathematics gets a free pass for scrutiny.

 

[doronshadmi]

We cannot have accurate mathematics until we have accurate physics because definable meaning can only be attached to sensible objects.

It can really be done only by directly being aware of the unified source of any possible expression, whether it is abstract or physical.

 

[doronshadmi]

There is a lot of interest in that link but this particularly struck me as relevant;

The famous Indian genius Ramanujan frequently produced marvellous formulae by some unknown mental process which could neither be described nor repeated. I think Connes would accept that such formulae do not become an accepted part of mathematics until others have understood them and verified their validity.

You do not have to be a medical doctor in order to know how to breathe.

But if you are a medical doctor you may have a better knowledge about it.

 

[keyfeatures]

In what way is it relevant? What about the paragraph surprises or inspires you? Nothing proffered in Mathematics gets a free pass for scrutiny.

For one, it suggests that language has limits up to the mutual comprehension capabilities of the group (or at least a significant subset of the group). Therefore, if an individual is significantly advanced in comprehension, their insights / formulae may not be adequately comprehended by others (and thus checked). You can only be peer reviewed if you have peers with equal comprehension capabilities. This does not make you wrong, only incomprehensible. Now that might mean you are mad - and thus creating incomprehensible nonsense - or ubergenius - and thus creating incomprehensible insight / proofs. However, if you can actually communicate at lower levels up to the point at which the comprehension stops (i.e. your standard mathematics etc is fine), the latter might be suspected.

It's also the case that the brain does a lot of thinking we are unaware of. Ramanujan sometimes describes having answers revealed to him. When such revealed insight occurs it might be easy to project outside to mysterious forces (gods?) - but since Libet we know that the chattering brain is capable of a lot of calculation prior to conscious awareness. The brain does not show all its workings out. We know, therefore, that the brain thinks at a higher level than we are aware of, or that is consciously expressed to us.

 

[jsfisher]

For one, it suggests that language has limits up to the mutual comprehension capabilities of the group (or at least a significant subset of the group). Therefore, if an individual is significantly advanced in comprehension, their insights / formulae may not be adequately comprehended by others (and thus checked).

That's not what it is saying.

When Gauss as a boy was given the busy-work assignment of summing all the numbers from 1 to 100 (or so the story goes), he devised a curious formula for the general problem of the sum of the first N positive integers. Gauss' insights that led him to the formula may have great human interest value, but they are irrelevant to whether the formula does what it claims...and that would require verification.

Ramanujan has expanded Mathematics with what can only be described as raw brilliance. But Mathematics doesn't yield to appeal to authority. His insights must be backed by proof just like any other.

That should not be a surprise, but for some reason it surprises you.

You can only be peer reviewed if you have peers with equal comprehension capabilities. This does not make you wrong, only incomprehensible.

Nonsense. Verifying a mathematical proof does not require the same abilities that may have inspired formulating the theorem in the first place.

...
It's also the case that the brain does a lot of thinking we are unaware of. Ramanujan sometimes describes having answers revealed to him.

This is true, but not a part of the passage you cited.

When such revealed insight occurs it might be easy to project outside to mysterious forces (gods?)...

And on that note, I'll wave good bye as you wander off into the darkness that is neither Mathematics nor Science.

 

[keyfeatures]

That should not be a surprise, but for some reason it surprises you.

Did I mention being surprised? Or did you? I don't think relevance is surprise.
Neither did I say that mysterious forces / gods are justifiable. My point was that when the hive mind manifests something to our consciousness it might sometimes be easy to assume that an external 'force' is at play. Of course, there is a force at play. But not of a godlike nature.

Thankyou for the mention of Gauss. That is interesting.

Regarding peer review. That does require comprehension. Devising a proof requires more than comprehension. So I agree that the person developing the proof and the verifiers do not need the exact same skill set. But the verifiers do need the skills to comprehend.

Anyway, you give off the air of someone spoiling for a fight for no reason in particular. You won't find one here. Perhaps read other people's posts rather than projecting. Ego is a foe of knowledge.

 

[punshhh]

Cause and effect are but the subjectively separated elements of connected reality.

Who or what knows the subject being caused?

Subjects only exist in minds.

As such, observation is required only for the subjective bystander. C is the speed it takes to observe A to B. But A and B are already related and therefore instantaneous and infinite. The universe is as it is because no other way is possible. It is those who require time to observe who assume counterfactual reality may/can exist. Thinking that there is an external (or even internal) agent beyond / other than universal connected reality is clearly bonkers.

None of this can be determined. These mental gymnastics sound nice, but are little more than figments of the mind.

How did you determine;

a, that the universe is as it is because no other way is possible?

b, that the universe is infinite?

c, that an internal or external agent is irrational?

d, that "universal connected reality" is all there can be?

Before you answer might I point out that I am referring to actual existence rather than notions of the mind.

 

[punshhh]

To: curiosity and younger years.
Away: unsubstantiated claims and 'better than thou' attitude.

Yes.

I realised your second point beforehand, but pursued the ideas anyway out of unsatisfied curiosity. I had found western knowledge sorely lacking in answers for my questions.

In the end I worked out the answers myself, which is perhaps what we all do in the end. Provided we manage to maintain our personal intellectual independence.

 

[punshhh]

punshhh there is nothing mystical in TM or Organic Mathematics.

Yes.

"mystical" is a poorly defined term.

 

[doronshadmi]

We have learned from Godel's incompleteness theorems that axiomatic frameworks, which are strong enough to deal with Arithmetic (where the set of natural numbers is involved) can't be consistent AND complete, such that these frameworks have true expressions that can't be proven by the set of axioms of these frameworks (additional infinitely many axioms do not eliminate the existence of true expressions that can't be proven by these axioms).

In other words, provability at the level of thoughts (where all of the current axioms are done only at the level of thoughts) is not fundamental to the mathematical science if consistency is its fundamental property.

 

[keyfeatures]

How did you determine;

a, that the universe is as it is because no other way is possible?

b, that the universe is infinite?

c, that an internal or external agent is irrational?

d, that "universal connected reality" is all there can be?

Before you answer might I point out that I am referring to actual existence rather than notions of the mind.

a. Causality and non-causality are mutually exclusive states. The assumption that causality is behind all actions is not a logical fallacy. Unlike black swan events where it is a fallacy to induce that because all observed swans are white, all swans are white, where one state excludes the other we may exclude by observables. For example, if god were to be proven, atheism would be disproven. Likewise, if we observe causality, non-causality is disproven. There is a further similarity. Proving god does not exist is not possible. Similarly, proving non-causality is also impossible (possibility of hidden variables). Therefore, the burden of proof falls to the other side. Unluckily for the theists, they've never provided any proof of god. Luckily for determinists, the evidence for causality is all around. Before you state that quantum fluctuations / radioactive decay etc. are probabilistic / undetermined events, I cite this link http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1111.3328v1.pdf This logically reasons that quantum events are as physically determined as a coin toss - the outcome the result of real physical events. Probabilistic interpretation therefore is just a necessity of complexity and tractability. This could have been reasoned from the consideration that non-causality is not a state compatible with causality. They are either / or conditions. Therefore, determining that each event (its wrong to separate events but we must do so for mental manageability) is the logical progression in a highly complex chain, the universe cannot be any other way than it is.

b. I'm not saying the universe is infinite. It must be both finite and infinite. Therefore a fixed universe but one that appears from within to change. A zoetrope of space-time creation and destruction, the same moment, from a subjective point of view, recreated over and over. Sort of a standing universal wave function. In this way we avoid singularities and imaginary timelines. Also creation myths.

c. All thing being a continuum (there can be only one expressed nothing / everything - even my maths tells me this), then there can be no 'external'. Similarly, there is no self-contained internal. You cannot border off sections of the universe such that they are not connected. This means there can be no self-contained agency. Everything that occurs is part of universal expression.

d. By what mechanism could there be anything else? 2x0=0. You need 0 (nothing) to get 1 or - 1 (something/everything). Since there is only one unit of 0 (nothing), there can only be one expressed something (everything).

It goes without saying I reject multi-world hypothesis. You need only look at the ocean to sea why. Quantum fluctuations make sense if considered as the observable interference patterns of waves. Waves which, at our Planck length level of reality, we are unable to detect / observe. We must deduce them from observable actions. Shadows on the cave wall.

Of course, my model is abstraction. Impossible to prove or check. We have no external means of calibrating.

 

[doronshadmi]

You need 0 (nothing)

0 is not nothing, 0 is the cardinality of nothing.

 

[keyfeatures]

0 is not nothing, 0 is the cardinality of nothing.

True. But still only one nothing (that is also unified with everything).

 

[keyfeatures]

In terms of conservation of information, we must also consider universal underlying reality to be the ultimate replicator, guaranteeing consistent expression - and when observed subjectively from within manifests as repeated zoetropic cycles. Thus, no need for holographic event horizons etc.

 

[realpaladin]

/me grabs some popcorn!

 

[punshhh]

"Of course, my model is abstraction. Impossible to prove or check. We have no external means of calibrating".

Thanks for your answer, I just wanted to clarify the above.

a. Causality and non-causality are mutually exclusive states. The assumption that causality is behind all actions is not a logical fallacy. Unlike black swan events where it is a fallacy to induce that because all observed swans are white, all swans are white, where one state excludes the other we may exclude by observables. For example, if god were to be proven, atheism would be disproven. Likewise, if we observe causality, non-causality is disproven. There is a further similarity. Proving god does not exist is not possible. Similarly, proving non-causality is also impossible (possibility of hidden variables). Therefore, the burden of proof falls to the other side. Unluckily for the theists, they've never provided any proof of god. Luckily for determinists, the evidence for causality is all around. Before you state that quantum fluctuations / radioactive decay etc. are probabilistic / undetermined events, I cite this link http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1111.3328v1.pdf This logically reasons that quantum events are as physically determined as a coin toss - the outcome the result of real physical events. Probabilistic interpretation therefore is just a necessity of complexity and tractability. This could have been reasoned from the consideration that non-causality is not a state compatible with causality. They are either / or conditions. Therefore, determining that each event (its wrong to separate events but we must do so for mental manageability) is the logical progression in a highly complex chain, the universe cannot be any other way than it is.

I see no reason to conclude that there is no other kind of universe from what you write here.

b. I'm not saying the universe is infinite. It must be both finite and infinite. Therefore a fixed universe but one that appears from within to change. A zoetrope of space-time creation and destruction, the same moment, from a subjective point of view, recreated over and over. Sort of a standing universal wave function. In this way we avoid singularities and imaginary timelines. Also creation myths.

I know what your getting at here, you should realise that thoughts about existence and infinity take you into a whole different ball game of thinking.
Essentially we should remember that infinity is a human invention and is likely to be nothing more. However existence may be infinite like in some way.

c. All thing being a continuum (there can be only one expressed nothing / everything - even my maths tells me this), then there can be no 'external'. Similarly, there is no self-contained internal. You cannot border off sections of the universe such that they are not connected. This means there can be no self-contained agency. Everything that occurs is part of universal expression.

Due to our limitations as primitively (relatively) evolved primates, we really cannot address this question, as to the likelihood of agencies of any sort.

d. By what mechanism could there be anything else? 2x0=0. You need 0 (nothing) to get 1 or - 1 (something/everything). Since there is only one unit of 0 (nothing), there can only be one expressed something (everything).

Same answer as for question c.

It goes without saying I reject multi-world hypothesis. You need only look at the ocean to sea why. Quantum fluctuations make sense if considered as the observable interference patterns of waves. Waves which, at our Planck length level of reality, we are unable to detect / observe. We must deduce them from observable actions. Shadows on the cave wall.

I wouldn't be too hasty about the multi word hypothesis, it seems to be quite a useful tool.

I reject no ideas myself, although the degree to which I consider them is another matter.

Of course, my model is abstraction. Impossible to prove or check. We have no external means of calibrating.

Not quite correct, we have the appearance of existence, it should provide plenty to be going on with.

 

[punshhh]

In terms of conservation of information, we must also consider universal underlying reality to be the ultimate replicator, guaranteeing consistent expression - and when observed subjectively from within manifests as repeated zoetropic cycles. Thus, no need for holographic event horizons etc.

Run that by me again, using different phraselogy if possible ( to aid my interpretation).

 

[punshhh]

* realpaladin;8102601 grabs some popcorn!

I think I've picked up a hot potato by mistake