Jonny,
Hope you enjoyed your weekend.
I think I need to readdress the 0,1, and 2. I thought you got it, but i don't think you do yet. I think your close, however.I could be wrong, but when you wrote this below, I felt the need to make a major correction.
I said that we agree on the basic distinctions of natural number sets.Yet you say-
Jonny, when you write this, it tells me that you do not relate the value of the distinctions mathematically yet. We have already both agreed that 0, 1, and 2 contain soley unique distinctions found in each number in ordering and counting.
In programming software, this set of disctinctions is made painfully obvious. It's called Zer
ne_Infinity Princaple. Stated on this link as 'the only reasonable numbers in a programming language design are zero, one, and infinity'.
http://www.csis.pace.edu/~bergin/slides/Maclennan.html
In simple language, hackers lingo applies to this the Rule of Foo. 'Allow none of foo, one of foo, or any number of foo.
This is a very powerful set of distinctions. I'm not trying to change number theory or introduce new mathematics here, don't confuse my argument.
I'm going to argue very shortly how this set of distinctions can be made at a very fundamental aspect of our understanding and metaprogramming of reality to perfectly navigate choas, most specifically the chaos of behavior inside of the conflict of idea.
I already know these set of distinctions are valid mathematically. A friend of the family's is a former princton math professor, actually a little famous in the world of internet mathematics. Now he's making big $$$$$ (almost infinite;-) as an investment banker. I'm not going to mention his name because people here will most likely contact him as they did the other research friends of mine. I asked him to go over this with me more than two years ago, I wanted to find out if I was nuts or on to something. When I explain him the distinctions of 0, 1, and 2, he said "Oh, your onto something here. In mathematics we would call this Zero, One, Infinity"
Once he saw those distinctions, he came to be in perfect agreement with me regarding the rest of my argument about OS 0 1 2. He also suggested i was tapping into something essential used in quantum computing, which I hardly even understand, much less normal computer programming
So I know I can get there with you too if I got there with him.
they are the most elegant symbols to use, that is how they are used. They are a perfect representation. I'm not saying there cannot be a more elegant notation, I assume there can be, I'm just not a mathematician.
0 to 1 in mathematics is the same distinction as Mystery to True in truth values/perception/awareness.
Fooey!
0,1,2 in sequential order states the entire relationship of distinctions of the entire number line in ordering and counting. We dont get those distinctions in binary, we dont get {0,1} holding the same distinctions as {0,1,2}.
These distinctions are mathematicaly reasonable, it is not numerology or magical number theory. It is a set of distinctions that can be made regarding the sheerest possible degree complexity one can imagine or encounter.
Your stating the A=A princaple, which is only one of three possible truth values, and surely far from a contradictory statement regarding the truth values perfectly symbolized in precise form in 0,1,2.
So to me your saying "Bubblefish, i agree that there is a set of distinctions in ordering and counting, nothing, one, and many, but that's not very relevant to anything, and the numbers 0,1, and 2 are not perfect symbols of that description to be foundational to a logical system of semantics and dialectic"
So here then is where I shall continue to argue based on pure mathematical reasoning, with some layman's fumbles/metaphors here and there to keep things human.
ordering and counting encapsulate our entire epistemenological frameworks.
A QM mathematician still takes x number of steps to arrive at his answer. All mathematicians want to arrive at thier answer with the least possible number of steps for the sake of elegance and simplicity.
Ordering and Counting are part of our 'meta structure'. We begin there, and process upwards.
I am defining 'natural number' to mean an element of the postive integer set. I relate it's sum value 'infinity' to 0 or rather as a 'mysterious number' which has no sum.
The relationships of 0 and infinity, the arguments of 0 being an infinity, are higher level mathematical arguments that i am not quailified to make. Here are a few who are making those arguments.
http://ubertas.infosys.utas.edu.au/mathemagicians_circle/table22.html
Notice that the three distinctions, symbolized in OS 0 1 2 as 0, 1, and 2, are perfectly argued and reasoned inside of mathematics. In fact, if you read the discussion, you will see that one point of view inside the argument stated "The solution to zero, one, infinity, and undefined are not properly defined in a traditional system. It should be that an additional system needs to be developed. Another leap in mathematics would be great."
exactly! it's usage and ordering is relative to the operation, or rather subjective to the operation. All we have is 0, 1, and 2 (infinity) to play with.
It's not important if it's possible to divide things up like that, what is important is that we can't divide things up like that without those basic distinctions that exist objectivly.
It's a very important distinction to make in at least two areas that I know of.
1.)Software programming. (as in the 'foo' princaple)
2.)In a system for uncovering our truth values in dialectic for a standard and objective degree of certainty (OS 0 1 2, critical thinking, problem solving, conflict resolution).
It has extraordinary practical value once you consider the distinctions of reality that we can make. To come to see what anyone else can see, we have to come to 'see it from thier point of view' back to ours to find either truths or contradictions of truth.
Watch.
0= Unknown reality
1=Objective Reality
2=Subjective Reality.
First note the 1 value is noted to pertain to objective reality. Let's define that. Let's define objective reality as nothing more than our external environment. It's the environment where we find not only each other, but shared distinctions of objects. We agree that this sentence ends with the word this. This is because this text exists as symbolic objects embedded into code and projected onto not your computer screen, not my computer screen, but 'our' computer screens.
Objective reality is the one environment we all share in common. Thus, clearly 1=Objective reality. There is only 1 objective reality, and then there are an almost infinite number of points of view, conceptual assembleges, maps, or ideas about this shared environment which are all subjective to the point of view. (2 = Subjective reality)
There is your point of view.
There is my point of view.
And this is distinguished by objective reality which is 'our' point of view.
Even if we are in the most bitter of disagreements, even extremly violent ones, we still have perfect agreement in objective reality by default, regardless of the conflict. We can deconstruct all points of view into sets of shared information and conflicting information, and unknown information. We can't have one without the other.
it's just useful to make the distinction, since we are already agreeing on the distinctions we use in number!
If your a teenager, note the distinct and pracical value in these statements.
I have had sex only once.
I have had sex many times.
Which statement would you prefer to apply to mean 'you' if your 17 years old?
That's not neccesary for me to address, it's irrelevant. I'm not outlining number theory in OS 0 1 2. I relate these distinctions that are found in natural number counting.
If you somehow think it's relevant, please explain, as I dont see how it relates at all to my argument in the least.
If programmers use the princaple of foo, do they have to apply foo to irrational numbers?
I do appreciate you taking the time, however, to list out those further distinctions, I found it very informative none the less. It's just not relevant to this set of distinctions.
These distinctions recapitulate into our higher conceptualizations about reality.
agreed
Note, there is only '1' true answer to a standard mathematical problem, and an almost infinite number of 'false' answers!
Objective describe things which are or can be mutually observed. Subjective statements describe that which is individually experienced, felt, thought, or expressed.
1 to the many, and the many to the 1. True to all points of sentient views, most likely throughout all eternity and all of the universe.
These three distintions are how we uncover truth and objective reality.
A binary operation in thinking cannot possibly contain all information accuratly, while a ternary one can.
In logical problems, binary can be used when dealing with logical structures that fit certain rules we prescribe to them.
In real world problems, we have to account for things like uncertainty, chaos, complexity, irrationality, and subjectivity, and time
You may have not, but I most certainly am. By in 'reality' I mean in 'objective reality' not 'conceptual logical reality'
I'm not disagreeing with that, nor is that statement contradictory to anything that I write about OS 0 1 2 or the third value.
of course not, it would be a contradiction in terms. That is how we have three define sets. true, false, and unknown.
perhaps in princaple,yes, but your not taking into account Einstein! Time and space are the same thing. We gather knowledge through trial and error over time and space. It's relative to the point of view, not to the entire set of all knowledge in the universe! Think about that, even if we come to know all information collectivly as a species, we can't handle or model all of it at once perfectly as individuals, that's impossible i believe mathematically, that's what Godel was suggesting, from what I understand. there is a law to that, I'm trying to remember it's name right now.
That most likely is true, I have never once contradicted that, it's not apart of my argument. I do like to speculate that their could be a purely trancendental object that could possibly exist, and I use that sometimes as a thought experiment, but I have not in our discussion.
you can be certain that the word at the end of this sentence is the word this. You can be absolutly certain of it. Even if the smallest concievable possibility was that you are dreaming this discussion, the truth of that statement 'functions' as if it were absolutly true.
One of the people I am working on this project has a very neat solution to your conundrum, by the way. I can't sum it up as elegantly as he can, but he calls it 'triangulation', a number of simple steps and questions with two other 'entities' or percieved points of view where it can be perfectly determined that you are not a hedgehog logically, but rather you are alive and being, distinct from us.
Can you not be 100% certain that you exist? You most certainly can!
Yes, you can come to know that truth to the furthest degree of certainty that is possible to have, which is absolute certainty.
You can be absolutly certain because you think and you feel.
Your 'feeling' is a direct and self evident experience of being. If you're one of many millions of us who like to play with our awareness, you can put your mind into a state of pure being by a number of different methods, from meditation/yogas to drugs to technology. You can directly experience, without one thought whatsover, the exalted sense of being and the foundation for all truths.
Then, your 'thinking' becomes the secondary foundation, by thinking and discussing with others, through the process my friend outlines as 'tri-angulation', you will perfectly come to say 'I EXIST', and that statement is both subjectivly and objectivly true, a perfect harmony which reflects a higher mystery as yet uncovered but in princaple can be discovered.
Counting and ordering, I believe it's common knowledge, goes back at least 50,000 years. To order and count, we must have symbols, either gutteral or conceptual. To have symbols to use to count, we must have a set of symbols that can relate more than one distinction. That's symbolic usuage, that's artistic in relationship to something logical.
Cave paintings, pure artistic expression, goes back I believe at least 40,000 years. A picture of a buffalo on the cave wall is not the buffalo in the field (margritte's 'this is not a pipe). a symbol for 2 is not 1,1, but 2. There are no real sets of numbers in ordering and counting other than an infinite number of 1's that we 'order' into a symbol relative or subjective to our operation.
that's just it, we cant order by physical characteristics unless we can make a distinction of physical characteristics. our maps, knowledge, ideas, are constructed of a series of distinctions. We are all born into '0' distinctions. When we are first born, we cannot even distinguish ourselves from everything else.
We make 2 distinctions at a time when we 'count' or distinguish in groups of 1. the first distintion is 'mother' (or something similarly maternal) and what is inclusive of that first distintion? Our selves. We may not be aware of the second distinction after mother, but we sure will be at some point soon, it's a neccesary truth of objective reality.
watch. Symbolicaly notice the distinctions. 1, 2.
How many distinctions are there? two symbolically, three numerically. Then you could say each 1 could be divided into 10, so now we have a refrence for .9 of one thing, .4 of another, and .1 of the other, so now we have .8 left over that we havent refrenced yet. Right?
We work in base ten. base 10 is not 1-10, it is 0-9. We make 10 distinctions for base 10 counting, yet we dont refrence the symbol 10 as the distinction of 10, right? We just use 0-9.
I'm sure my examples would be parced simpler by a mathematician, but my examples are simple and obvious here.
I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we have lost track of our innate 'distinctions' that are found in ordering and counting.
I am in perfect agreement with that statement.
we also tend to attribute things like 'hoax' or 'fraud' or 'lunacy' to ideas that challenge our frameworks without examining our beliefs about our frameworks. It's the same error, exactly the same.
hmmm, there is a deeper philosophical conotation/argument to what you state here, but I dont think your intention is to get that deep, so I agree with that statement at face value.
hmmm, I find a contradiction here, for are not mathematics and the scientific method us simply using our brains? Explain please.
It's the same symbolic representation. It's the relationships of ordering and counting that repeat throughout all of our knowledge and understanding, not the counting numbers!
Please dont think my argument is that ordering and counting is the foundation of all knowledge. It could be, that would be an interesting speculation to follow, it's just not what i am arguing.
Jonny, c'mon, that's the same thing! Religion is based on text. In the beginning was the 'word', and the 'word' was made 'flesh'. Text is either objectivly dominant or subjectivly dominant. Religious text is much closer to poetry and prose than critical objective statements. Those are false ideas about mysterious concepts. Religious people confuse the meaning of three values we all share in common, and are assuming that the religious text are objectivly true statements, not symbolic representations of the 'experience' of the author had with something distinguishable as 'divine'.
they are doing nothing more than relying on thier inner 'truthiness' (if I may borrow Stephan Colbert) and assuming it has a dominant objective value for all of us. That's irrationality, pure and simple. It has it's place as subjective expression and art, (as stephan colbert uses his natural 'irrationality' to convey the irrationality of politicians), and can point to another or higher truth, but it is not true in and of itself, it's a symbol, or uses symbols, to share 'meaning' between subjectivity and the quest for truth or objectivity.
It's not hard once you get the distinctions.
Don't confuse my argument. I'm not arguing we were once shiny happy ternary thinkers.
they, or rather, all of us, confuse our 'natural' set of distinctions, I used 'confusing ordering for counting' as a metaphor. haggert truly believes in his mind that he is right, so does george bush, so do most people. They dont 'think' they are irrational, they assume they are rational. Yet if you were to have a dialectic, and deconstruct thier personal meaning of 'rational', you would find evidence of irrationality in how they were using 'rational'.
A very very important anecdote to consider. Honesty must go back as far as ordering and counting, it must. Honesty is 'essential' to having shared information as a society. Did you know male monkies lie to mate? They do. Who is more succesful at mating, humans or monkies? (yes, some humans lie to mate too, however, that doesnt work so well once the object of your desire figures out you were lying!)
Jonny, you asked an amazing question, you asked
And I am going to take a break before I respond to that. eat some lunch, etc etc. I want to make sure I am making good points!
So let's this half of the discussion focus on 0, 1, and 2 and their distinctions, and my next post will respond to this wonderful question and the rest of your thoughtful comments.
Bubblefish
Hope you enjoyed your weekend.
I think I need to readdress the 0,1, and 2. I thought you got it, but i don't think you do yet. I think your close, however.I could be wrong, but when you wrote this below, I felt the need to make a major correction.
I said that we agree on the basic distinctions of natural number sets.Yet you say-
Jonny, when you write this, it tells me that you do not relate the value of the distinctions mathematically yet. We have already both agreed that 0, 1, and 2 contain soley unique distinctions found in each number in ordering and counting.
In programming software, this set of disctinctions is made painfully obvious. It's called Zer
ne_Infinity Princaple. Stated on this link as 'the only reasonable numbers in a programming language design are zero, one, and infinity'.http://www.csis.pace.edu/~bergin/slides/Maclennan.html
In simple language, hackers lingo applies to this the Rule of Foo. 'Allow none of foo, one of foo, or any number of foo.
This is a very powerful set of distinctions. I'm not trying to change number theory or introduce new mathematics here, don't confuse my argument.
I'm going to argue very shortly how this set of distinctions can be made at a very fundamental aspect of our understanding and metaprogramming of reality to perfectly navigate choas, most specifically the chaos of behavior inside of the conflict of idea.
I already know these set of distinctions are valid mathematically. A friend of the family's is a former princton math professor, actually a little famous in the world of internet mathematics. Now he's making big $$$$$ (almost infinite;-) as an investment banker. I'm not going to mention his name because people here will most likely contact him as they did the other research friends of mine. I asked him to go over this with me more than two years ago, I wanted to find out if I was nuts or on to something. When I explain him the distinctions of 0, 1, and 2, he said "Oh, your onto something here. In mathematics we would call this Zero, One, Infinity"
Once he saw those distinctions, he came to be in perfect agreement with me regarding the rest of my argument about OS 0 1 2. He also suggested i was tapping into something essential used in quantum computing, which I hardly even understand, much less normal computer programming
So I know I can get there with you too if I got there with him.
they are the most elegant symbols to use, that is how they are used. They are a perfect representation. I'm not saying there cannot be a more elegant notation, I assume there can be, I'm just not a mathematician.
0 to 1 in mathematics is the same distinction as Mystery to True in truth values/perception/awareness.
Fooey!
0,1,2 in sequential order states the entire relationship of distinctions of the entire number line in ordering and counting. We dont get those distinctions in binary, we dont get {0,1} holding the same distinctions as {0,1,2}.
These distinctions are mathematicaly reasonable, it is not numerology or magical number theory. It is a set of distinctions that can be made regarding the sheerest possible degree complexity one can imagine or encounter.
Your stating the A=A princaple, which is only one of three possible truth values, and surely far from a contradictory statement regarding the truth values perfectly symbolized in precise form in 0,1,2.
So to me your saying "Bubblefish, i agree that there is a set of distinctions in ordering and counting, nothing, one, and many, but that's not very relevant to anything, and the numbers 0,1, and 2 are not perfect symbols of that description to be foundational to a logical system of semantics and dialectic"
So here then is where I shall continue to argue based on pure mathematical reasoning, with some layman's fumbles/metaphors here and there to keep things human.
ordering and counting encapsulate our entire epistemenological frameworks.
A QM mathematician still takes x number of steps to arrive at his answer. All mathematicians want to arrive at thier answer with the least possible number of steps for the sake of elegance and simplicity.
Ordering and Counting are part of our 'meta structure'. We begin there, and process upwards.
I am defining 'natural number' to mean an element of the postive integer set. I relate it's sum value 'infinity' to 0 or rather as a 'mysterious number' which has no sum.
The relationships of 0 and infinity, the arguments of 0 being an infinity, are higher level mathematical arguments that i am not quailified to make. Here are a few who are making those arguments.
http://ubertas.infosys.utas.edu.au/mathemagicians_circle/table22.html
Notice that the three distinctions, symbolized in OS 0 1 2 as 0, 1, and 2, are perfectly argued and reasoned inside of mathematics. In fact, if you read the discussion, you will see that one point of view inside the argument stated "The solution to zero, one, infinity, and undefined are not properly defined in a traditional system. It should be that an additional system needs to be developed. Another leap in mathematics would be great."
exactly! it's usage and ordering is relative to the operation, or rather subjective to the operation. All we have is 0, 1, and 2 (infinity) to play with.
It's not important if it's possible to divide things up like that, what is important is that we can't divide things up like that without those basic distinctions that exist objectivly.
It's a very important distinction to make in at least two areas that I know of.
1.)Software programming. (as in the 'foo' princaple)
2.)In a system for uncovering our truth values in dialectic for a standard and objective degree of certainty (OS 0 1 2, critical thinking, problem solving, conflict resolution).
It has extraordinary practical value once you consider the distinctions of reality that we can make. To come to see what anyone else can see, we have to come to 'see it from thier point of view' back to ours to find either truths or contradictions of truth.
Watch.
0= Unknown reality
1=Objective Reality
2=Subjective Reality.
First note the 1 value is noted to pertain to objective reality. Let's define that. Let's define objective reality as nothing more than our external environment. It's the environment where we find not only each other, but shared distinctions of objects. We agree that this sentence ends with the word this. This is because this text exists as symbolic objects embedded into code and projected onto not your computer screen, not my computer screen, but 'our' computer screens.
Objective reality is the one environment we all share in common. Thus, clearly 1=Objective reality. There is only 1 objective reality, and then there are an almost infinite number of points of view, conceptual assembleges, maps, or ideas about this shared environment which are all subjective to the point of view. (2 = Subjective reality)
There is your point of view.
There is my point of view.
And this is distinguished by objective reality which is 'our' point of view.
Even if we are in the most bitter of disagreements, even extremly violent ones, we still have perfect agreement in objective reality by default, regardless of the conflict. We can deconstruct all points of view into sets of shared information and conflicting information, and unknown information. We can't have one without the other.
it's just useful to make the distinction, since we are already agreeing on the distinctions we use in number!
If your a teenager, note the distinct and pracical value in these statements.
I have had sex only once.
I have had sex many times.
Which statement would you prefer to apply to mean 'you' if your 17 years old?
That's not neccesary for me to address, it's irrelevant. I'm not outlining number theory in OS 0 1 2. I relate these distinctions that are found in natural number counting.
If you somehow think it's relevant, please explain, as I dont see how it relates at all to my argument in the least.
If programmers use the princaple of foo, do they have to apply foo to irrational numbers?
I do appreciate you taking the time, however, to list out those further distinctions, I found it very informative none the less. It's just not relevant to this set of distinctions.
These distinctions recapitulate into our higher conceptualizations about reality.
agreed
'True' can only be 'true' when it relates to a 'truth' in existence in objective reality. Our objective reality gives us 'truth' and nothing but 'truth'. That's one reality, one mutually observable and shared environment. False is only logically opposed to true when it is applied to true statement or inquiery. It is NOT opposed to truth when considering it's higher and natural function, subjectivity, pure falseness, pure concept to the 'true' of physical reality.
Note, there is only '1' true answer to a standard mathematical problem, and an almost infinite number of 'false' answers!
Objective describe things which are or can be mutually observed. Subjective statements describe that which is individually experienced, felt, thought, or expressed.
1 to the many, and the many to the 1. True to all points of sentient views, most likely throughout all eternity and all of the universe.
These three distintions are how we uncover truth and objective reality.
A binary operation in thinking cannot possibly contain all information accuratly, while a ternary one can.
In logical problems, binary can be used when dealing with logical structures that fit certain rules we prescribe to them.
In real world problems, we have to account for things like uncertainty, chaos, complexity, irrationality, and subjectivity, and time
You may have not, but I most certainly am. By in 'reality' I mean in 'objective reality' not 'conceptual logical reality'
I'm not disagreeing with that, nor is that statement contradictory to anything that I write about OS 0 1 2 or the third value.
of course not, it would be a contradiction in terms. That is how we have three define sets. true, false, and unknown.
perhaps in princaple,yes, but your not taking into account Einstein! Time and space are the same thing. We gather knowledge through trial and error over time and space. It's relative to the point of view, not to the entire set of all knowledge in the universe! Think about that, even if we come to know all information collectivly as a species, we can't handle or model all of it at once perfectly as individuals, that's impossible i believe mathematically, that's what Godel was suggesting, from what I understand. there is a law to that, I'm trying to remember it's name right now.
That most likely is true, I have never once contradicted that, it's not apart of my argument. I do like to speculate that their could be a purely trancendental object that could possibly exist, and I use that sometimes as a thought experiment, but I have not in our discussion.
you can be certain that the word at the end of this sentence is the word this. You can be absolutly certain of it. Even if the smallest concievable possibility was that you are dreaming this discussion, the truth of that statement 'functions' as if it were absolutly true.
One of the people I am working on this project has a very neat solution to your conundrum, by the way. I can't sum it up as elegantly as he can, but he calls it 'triangulation', a number of simple steps and questions with two other 'entities' or percieved points of view where it can be perfectly determined that you are not a hedgehog logically, but rather you are alive and being, distinct from us.
Can you not be 100% certain that you exist? You most certainly can!
Yes, you can come to know that truth to the furthest degree of certainty that is possible to have, which is absolute certainty.
You can be absolutly certain because you think and you feel.
Your 'feeling' is a direct and self evident experience of being. If you're one of many millions of us who like to play with our awareness, you can put your mind into a state of pure being by a number of different methods, from meditation/yogas to drugs to technology. You can directly experience, without one thought whatsover, the exalted sense of being and the foundation for all truths.
Then, your 'thinking' becomes the secondary foundation, by thinking and discussing with others, through the process my friend outlines as 'tri-angulation', you will perfectly come to say 'I EXIST', and that statement is both subjectivly and objectivly true, a perfect harmony which reflects a higher mystery as yet uncovered but in princaple can be discovered.
Counting and ordering, I believe it's common knowledge, goes back at least 50,000 years. To order and count, we must have symbols, either gutteral or conceptual. To have symbols to use to count, we must have a set of symbols that can relate more than one distinction. That's symbolic usuage, that's artistic in relationship to something logical.
Cave paintings, pure artistic expression, goes back I believe at least 40,000 years. A picture of a buffalo on the cave wall is not the buffalo in the field (margritte's 'this is not a pipe). a symbol for 2 is not 1,1, but 2. There are no real sets of numbers in ordering and counting other than an infinite number of 1's that we 'order' into a symbol relative or subjective to our operation.
that's just it, we cant order by physical characteristics unless we can make a distinction of physical characteristics. our maps, knowledge, ideas, are constructed of a series of distinctions. We are all born into '0' distinctions. When we are first born, we cannot even distinguish ourselves from everything else.
We make 2 distinctions at a time when we 'count' or distinguish in groups of 1. the first distintion is 'mother' (or something similarly maternal) and what is inclusive of that first distintion? Our selves. We may not be aware of the second distinction after mother, but we sure will be at some point soon, it's a neccesary truth of objective reality.
watch. Symbolicaly notice the distinctions. 1, 2.
How many distinctions are there? two symbolically, three numerically. Then you could say each 1 could be divided into 10, so now we have a refrence for .9 of one thing, .4 of another, and .1 of the other, so now we have .8 left over that we havent refrenced yet. Right?
We work in base ten. base 10 is not 1-10, it is 0-9. We make 10 distinctions for base 10 counting, yet we dont refrence the symbol 10 as the distinction of 10, right? We just use 0-9.
I'm sure my examples would be parced simpler by a mathematician, but my examples are simple and obvious here.
I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we have lost track of our innate 'distinctions' that are found in ordering and counting.
I am in perfect agreement with that statement.
we also tend to attribute things like 'hoax' or 'fraud' or 'lunacy' to ideas that challenge our frameworks without examining our beliefs about our frameworks. It's the same error, exactly the same.
hmmm, there is a deeper philosophical conotation/argument to what you state here, but I dont think your intention is to get that deep, so I agree with that statement at face value.
hmmm, I find a contradiction here, for are not mathematics and the scientific method us simply using our brains? Explain please.
It's the same symbolic representation. It's the relationships of ordering and counting that repeat throughout all of our knowledge and understanding, not the counting numbers!
Please dont think my argument is that ordering and counting is the foundation of all knowledge. It could be, that would be an interesting speculation to follow, it's just not what i am arguing.
Jonny, c'mon, that's the same thing! Religion is based on text. In the beginning was the 'word', and the 'word' was made 'flesh'. Text is either objectivly dominant or subjectivly dominant. Religious text is much closer to poetry and prose than critical objective statements. Those are false ideas about mysterious concepts. Religious people confuse the meaning of three values we all share in common, and are assuming that the religious text are objectivly true statements, not symbolic representations of the 'experience' of the author had with something distinguishable as 'divine'.
they are doing nothing more than relying on thier inner 'truthiness' (if I may borrow Stephan Colbert) and assuming it has a dominant objective value for all of us. That's irrationality, pure and simple. It has it's place as subjective expression and art, (as stephan colbert uses his natural 'irrationality' to convey the irrationality of politicians), and can point to another or higher truth, but it is not true in and of itself, it's a symbol, or uses symbols, to share 'meaning' between subjectivity and the quest for truth or objectivity.
It's not hard once you get the distinctions.
Don't confuse my argument. I'm not arguing we were once shiny happy ternary thinkers.
they, or rather, all of us, confuse our 'natural' set of distinctions, I used 'confusing ordering for counting' as a metaphor. haggert truly believes in his mind that he is right, so does george bush, so do most people. They dont 'think' they are irrational, they assume they are rational. Yet if you were to have a dialectic, and deconstruct thier personal meaning of 'rational', you would find evidence of irrationality in how they were using 'rational'.
A very very important anecdote to consider. Honesty must go back as far as ordering and counting, it must. Honesty is 'essential' to having shared information as a society. Did you know male monkies lie to mate? They do. Who is more succesful at mating, humans or monkies? (yes, some humans lie to mate too, however, that doesnt work so well once the object of your desire figures out you were lying!)
Jonny, you asked an amazing question, you asked
And I am going to take a break before I respond to that. eat some lunch, etc etc. I want to make sure I am making good points!
So let's this half of the discussion focus on 0, 1, and 2 and their distinctions, and my next post will respond to this wonderful question and the rest of your thoughtful comments.
Bubblefish
