Skepticism and The Normal

[Professor Yaffle]

Written in white as I don't know how to do the clever spoiler thingy...


When we all know 9! = 362800

 

[pv+]

[An aside - how many of the following list of characteristics would you say bubblefish here exhibits?

1. 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
   2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
   3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
   4. requires excessive admiration
   5. strong sense of entitlement
   6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
   7. lacks empathy
   8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
   9. arrogant affect ]

All of the above, to excess. Typically self-obsessed and showbizzy. Craves attention and has an inflated sense of importance and ability. Any investigation into his achievements doesn't reveal anything other than sparse mediocrity or worse. His activities actually seem to consist of promoting a flaky philosophy on a flakier web site, making propaganda flicks for a quack to post on Youtube and getting stoned - not necessarily in that order. Nothing in his half-witted posts suggests any real understanding of the world at large - quite the contrary. And it's not difficult to figure out why. He isn't at all complicated, rather, messed up. But he likes to present himself as complicated because in his limited way he probably thinks if he presents himself like that people will think he's much cleverer and more "mysterious" than he really is. No doubt the poor little rich kid will have his own purposely obtuse take on it.

 

[Mojo]

Of course, it has to be remembered that Pythagoras was basically a raving nutcase. The rules of his cult included not touching white cocks or using mirrors next to lights.

And don't forget about the beans!

It is entirely possible he would order someone killed for whatever crossed his mind at the time, but there is no actual eveidence that he ever did.

In fact, even if the Pythagoreans did kill Hippasus, it doesn't mean that Pythagoras ordered the killing himself. As I said above, according to the book he appeared to have been killed for revealing the existence of irrational numbers, which the "brotherhood" wanted to keep secret, to the outside world. According to Wikipedia, in a referenced paragraph:

The Pythagoreans observed a rule of silence called echemythia, the breaking of which was punishable by death. This was because the Pythagoreans believed that a man's words were usually careless and misrepresented him and that when someone was "in doubt as to what he should say, he should always remain silent".

Some good advice for someone there.

In addition, the dates at which Pythagoras and Hippasus lived are not at all clear. Some discussions of the Pythagoras/Hippasus legend suggest that Hippasus may have outlived Pythagoras, and it even seems possible that Pythagoras died before Hippasus was even born. Pythagoras's date of death is often reported to have been before the end of the sixth century BC, and Hippasus is usually said to have been born circa 500BC, or in the fifth century BC.

See, for example, this page:

An experiment ascribed to Hippasus, who was active in the first half of the fifth century, after Pythagoras' death...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The beans...

http://users.ucom.net/~vegan/beans.htm

 

[JonnyFive]

Written in white as I don't know how to do the clever spoiler thingy...

Write [spoiler] and [/spoiler] around the text you want to hide.

The truth is, 9 != x where x equals any real number except for 9. Shhh... it's a secret.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I found out just after I posted, but thanks anyway.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"Light as a wave" and "light as a particle" are models that we apply to light, each of which is appropriate to use in particular circumstances but neither of which completely describes what light actually is. As Zaay says, it is what it is.

Although I certainly don't have a complete understanding of quantum physics, I find it helps to ask: How would you observe a light "wavicle"? You can't look at it, as looking at it would involve bouncing another light wavicle off it, and that wouldn't tell us much because both wavicles would become altered by the interaction. Therefore, we have these complex models of how subatomic particles are PROBABLY behaving at any given point in time. There's nothing magical about it, despite the efforts of the woos to co-opt quantum mechanics for their own uses.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Bivalent logic has botha logical and intuitive relationship. Bivalent logic, aristolian logic/philosophy, dualism, binary, all share something in common.

So do Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello, and Ren and Stimpy, that doesnt make Ren and Stimpy logic either useful, accurate, or intuitive either.

Earlier you posted a link to an article about ternary logic, then later, another link to an article about the base-3 numbering system. I got the feeling you thought there was some sort of link between the two.

Is there? Because I don't see it, any more than I see a link between binary logic and Ren and Stimpy.

 

[drkitten]

I still find it hard to believe that so many of you are still struggling with this third value.

We're not. Or -- I shoudn't speak authoritatively for the rest of the forum -- I'm not. There's nothing to struggle with. It's simply wrong.

I don't struggle with it. I reject it as incorrect, in the same way I would reject an argument that began "since a square has twenty-three sides,...."

Three truth values have both an intuitive and logical relationship.

So do the three Stooges, or Goldilocks' bears.

There are actually any number of "intuitive and logical relationships" that one can create between a set of three values. The game Rock, Scissors, Paper forms an intuitive and logical relationship (it's a cycle, which has the additional advantage of elegance). The three values of 1, 0, and DK/X as used in circuit analysis (look up Karnaugh maps for examples) have an equally intuitive and logical relationship, but it's non-cyclic and entirely different.

And, of course, Goldilocks' bears have the logical relationship of father, mother, and child.

However,.... the relationships of logic that you propose in OS012 do not are neigher intuitive nor logical. In fact, they're outright incorrect. And for this reason, OS012 is neither useful, accurate, intuitive, logical, nor coherent.

In fact, you ought to look much more closely at K-maps, since they are more or less a direct refutation of everything you've said in this thread. First, they show that mathematicians, logicians, and engineers are familiar with three-value logic and have been for decades (Karnaugh invented the maps that bear his name in 1953, more than fifty years ago). Second, they also show that mathematicians are comfortable with logics that where alternatives to the true/false dichotomy exist (the third value in the Karnaugh framework represents "don't know" or "don't care.") But this very third value shows a correct way of modelling uncertainty or underspecification in a set of trivalent logics.

 

[pv+]

In fact, you ought to look much more closely at K-maps, since they are more or less a direct refutation of everything you've said in this thread. First, they show that mathematicians, logicians, and engineers are familiar with three-value logic and have been for decades (Karnaugh invented the maps that bear his name in 1953, more than fifty years ago). Second, they also show that mathematicians are comfortable with logics that where alternatives to the true/false dichotomy exist (the third value in the Karnaugh framework represents "don't know" or "don't care.") But this very third value shows a correct way of modelling uncertainty or underspecification in a set of trivalent logics.

Surely he's not trawling (sorry, trolling) the Internet looking for "teach yourself K-maps", or "the toddlers' guide to K-maps".

 

[WWHP]

I brought this up, oooooh, ages ago back on bs, and I've seen nothing to change my view, namely high probability of NPD.
In fact I've read plenty more to reinforce my view. As for Bubba saying he could score a perfect 10, well, reinforces my view about his ability with numbers, that whole post is almost an NPD manifesto.

Wee_eck, Flam_or who ever this is, are you guys/gals actually for real???

You claim to attack poor conclusions in science experiments, wont allow any crititical information to be accepted unless it's a full double blind, and yet you fall for every trick bone I throw your way and 'trick' yourselves with your ideas about me.

No one knows me, I dont know any of you. We are all mystery to each other, all we have is text.

I want critical discussion of the ideas. You want to discuss me over and over and then diagnose me with NPD!

If you want to go on a hunch about who I am, especially when I tell you over and over that I respond to ad hom with sarcasm, most especially TONGUE IN CHEEK, then you go, doctor. Can't wait to read your next write-up!

And please, remember that magical thinking isnt critical thinking, saying something over and over doesnt make it true.

Bad science, indeed! What a bunch of shmoes.

Okay, now, please go back to adoring and worshipping me. By the way, I scored a perfect 10 on the NPD test because you all left out the 10'th value;-)

 

[sinnikal]

And please, remember that magical thinking isnt critical thinking, saying something over and over doesnt make it true.

Ok, nice precis of the message that has continually been directed your way by many contibutors to this thread.
All you need to do now is implement it.
Not Wee eck or flim-flam or Flammable Flower.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, now, please go back to adoring and worshipping me.

I'm sorry -- that was apparently just a dream.

 

[WWHP]

Jonny my man,

We are almost perfectly communicating, i.e. we are close to perfect agreement here.

Sure, simple math is the foundation of more complex math, no disagreement there either.

Yes

Okay, as long as you're not ignoring everything less than 0.

I'm not

Specifically, counting and ordering are done using only the natural numbers. Those numbers only include 0, and all positive whole real numbers after it.

yes, that is what I mean....

So if you say "continual lineation" to mean the infinite number of values between each whole number, it's not part of counting and ordering at all. If you simply mean that the number line never ends, then I agree with you.

Then we agree.

Could you please provide a slightly more rigorous definition of "distinction" in this context?

Let me provide a visual example

0= the distiction of null
1=the distinction of unit
2= the distinction of numbers of units

If you're only working with natural numbers, then you could make the argument that it's somehow special, but that isn't really based in any kind of mathematics.

Well, no, it's not mathematics per se, I've never said OS 0 1 2 was mathematics, I'm saying these three distinctions in number form the basic distinctions of natural number, i.e. these are the distinctions we use to tell natural numbers apart.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "they signify the whole of all relationships conceptually". Are you talking about mathematical relationships, or something else?

I'm talking about all things which we can conceptualize. these three values, these three distinctions, are embedded, projected, into our perception of environment (reality) and we can deconstruct reality back down to these basic three distinctions, i.e. these distinctions are something that we all share in common. We can find thier fingerprints all over the place, even in how we use natural numbers at a very basic level.

If you're talking about mathematical relationships, you'll need a lot more than three digits. Even using a base three counting system, there are concepts that cannot be expressed simply using digits. I'm going to need a clearer idea of what you mean by this to answer in depth.

Any mathematician or layman naturally makes these distinctions in number, but it's beyond the conscious level, i.e. these distinctions are 'wired' into us.

Got it. Again, clarify what you mean by "base of all conceptions". Are you talking about it being the base of all mathematical concepts, or something else?

These three distinctions are the base of all we can percieve, and thus everything we can percieve wil naturally show thier fingerprints. These distinctions are more than likely hard wired into our brains.

0.12

What is the "singular unit" you're talking about here.

0.12 was an example, '1' is being analyzed, referred to, and .12 is what is left of the full '1'. It was just an ancedote, we dont have to belabor it.

Why would you need to include numbers as symbols? Am I misunderstanding your intent here?

the symbols 0, 1, 2 are used to convey the repeating fingerprint of these three distinctions.

How do you express decimals using 1? If you're going to stretch this to include usages of the digit one in decimal places, then you're not really using "1" at all.

I'm not

Infinity is not really used to express results, it is used as something that can be approached but never reached. You can't however, assign "infinity" as the value of a variable and have it be meaningful.

agreed, but we know the natural lineation is infinite. 2+ and on keeps going, and all of those natural numbers keep the distinction of 'ordering and counting units'

If that's incorrect, then you'll need to be clearer when you state things.

you're helping me! thank you

This argument only holds with natural numbers.

agreed

You could probably make some argument that all natural numbers are made up of units of 1 and all decimals are made up of fractions of 1, but to go from there to arguing that 1 is the conceptual base for all higher numbers might be a bit of a stretch.

sorry, I didnt mean higher numbers in math the way you are here, I just meant 'higher' than 1

I think a more accurate way of describing the conceptual basis for numbers would be to address the issue of places on either side of the decimal.

I am addressing the conceptual in natural numbers that are found repeating and recapitulaing elsewhere, i.e. outside of number.



Recapitulation:

You mean "review and summary", correct?

no, to repeat in precise form.

I suppose you could argue that checking equations is a form of review and summary in mathematics. If you mean something more by this, you'll need to further define it.

these three distinctions and thier relationships to each other repeat in precise form throughout all we can percieve.

Depends on the system you're using. There are systems of true/false that use 0 as false, but it really depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to be able to perform logical calculations, the precise values are important.

in the ternary logic paper I sent you, the values are defined as 0=unknown, 1=true, and 2= false.

0 is not 2. not the same distinction

Define "distinction" in this context, please.

In what I refrence as the three distinctions in natural number, i.e. their ordering value.

No number is the "center" of the number line, if you mean the infinite number line. 0 looks nice because it's between the positive and negative numbers, but it's not technically the center, because there are infinite values. Any given value has infinite numbers before and after it, and hence cannot be the center.

good point, noted. But on a infinite number line, would you not consider all numbers either coming away from or 'into' 0 (as in the negative numbers).

0 is the starting point in lineation, that is all I am suggesting.

It may or may not be the center of a given finite number line. If I use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as my number line, then 3 is the center.

Yes, I see what you mean

Sure, the natural number line continues to infinity, if that's the number line you mean.

that's the number line I mean, yes.

Again, not sure what you're getting at. There are an infinite occurrence of each digit, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Sure it does, it means quite allot! it shows that the distinction of 4 in terms of units can infinitly be continuous, all numbers above 1 in counting are 'symbols' used relative to the operation, but on a number line, there are an infinite number of sets of 4 things, i.e. all numbers are 'infinite' in this regard.

Clarify what this means.

1 is continously the only 'objective' number and real distinction, all numbers above one are relative to the operation, only 1 or a series of 1's really exists.

Oh, you mean sets of 4 values.

yes.....4 is just a symbol of four distinctions of units. there is unit, and there is number of units. the number of units is relative to the operation, not the number line

Yes, there are an infinite possible number of sets of 4 values on any given infinite number line, but that in itself doesn't really do or mean anything. Was there a larger issue there or was that just a statement of fact?

the larger issue is to how we use symbols that are not the thing in and of themselves to communicate truths.

If you're just saying that there are an infinite possible number of n element sets on an infinite number line and nothing more then, sure, you're correct.

thank you

No, I agree that three-value systems have a place in mathematics. I don't think Taoism does, but base three and ternary logic have an established place in the world of mathematics.

I agree, I'm not saying taoism is math, it's just an intuitive adaptation of a ternary set. Although some people do claim that the I Ching, the book of changes, is mathematical, although I can't argue how.

Base three isn't a very useful system for most people, just like binary isn't, or base 8. All it does is provide another way to express the same values as base 10, but it does it in a way that people aren't comfortable with.

sure, I can see that. I just used that as an example that three numbers 0, 1, and 2 can have mathematical reasoning, it's not just intuitive and it's certainly NOT magical!

Boolean logic has a distinct place in the world, but it doesn't work for everything. The ternary logic system appears to attempt to address the issue of uncertainty in a singular logic problem, which Boolean logic ignores, while still allowing set operations using the Boolean logic operations (AND, NOT, OR).

If you dont mind, i will use that and give you full credit!

That's why the values are important in ternary logic, it makes working with set operations easier and more logical.

yes

In many ways, it appears to be an extension of Boolean logic.

or an upgrade?


Jonny, How close are we to perfect agreement here? Soley in the use of numbers, that is, not in the greater body of this argument.


Bubblefish

 

[pv+]

No one knows me, I dont know any of you. We are all mystery to each other, all we have is text.

This is where you are wrong, Bubbly. All you have is text. You aren't anything like as smart as you think. There are lots of ways of knowing about you!

 

[WWHP]

Ok, nice precis of the message that has continually been directed your way by many contibutors to this thread.
All you need to do now is implement it.
Not Wee eck or flim-flam or Flammable Flower.

HUMPF! When it is thrown my way, it is an example of many of you using magical thinking. I have consistantly been able to show the reasoning in my arguments and either back my assertions or retract them when I make an error.

ALL of you HAVE failed to do that, so you keep your 'magical thinking' going in your minds about who I am to refute the arguments and ideas I am addressing.

Go ahead, post 20 more times that I have a NPD.........and watch how many of you will believe that because they see it written so many times!

 

[WWHP]

This is where you are wrong, Bubbly. All you have is text. You aren't anything like as smart as you think. There are lots of ways of knowing about you!

I am a creative, honest and reasonable human being of average intelligence, I have stated that over and over. I dont think I'm an example of an extraordinary intelligence. I do think I have a high degree of 'emotional intelligence' or intuition, but that is irrelevant to my arguments

What I suggest is simple and mutually observable, anyone can understand it.

 

[sinnikal]

If you dont mind, i will use that and give you full credit!

Not offering to pay for material for 'the project' over here then?

 

[Timanfaya]

As Jonny stated perfectly earlier, the intersection between {James Randi} and {Deception/Delusion} is {Mystery}.

But in fact:

The intersection of {James Randi} and {mystery} is {Deception}.

 

[jimbob]

HUMPF! When it is thrown my way, it is an example of many of you using magical thinking. I have consistantly been able to show the reasoning in my arguments and either back my assertions or retract them when I make an error.

ALL of you HAVE failed to do that, so you keep your 'magical thinking' going in your minds about who I am to refute the arguments and ideas I am addressing.

Go ahead, post 20 more times that I have a NPD.........and watch how many of you will believe that because they see it written so many times!

But iot is not enough to have logically consistant thinking:

It is logically consistant that if OS012 (why not "null-plus-minus", which would be more intuitive for remembering which values are which) is the master meme then it could be of use in solving conflict.

But it isn't...

You still havn't answered my points about the whole logic system being restrictive. Sometimes there are two options only (true/false) sometimes there are many, sometimes such analysis is innapropriate.

Jim