This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is our math wrong? Is it our assumption of zero, or absolute nothingness?
There are know phenomena out there such as the gamma ray burst that total destroys(use loosely your ego wants to argue this syntax error not the mind) our current math and physics(e=mc2). But instead of saying well maybe we got a key part of our math wrong we make it so the phenomena matches our math. This is my personal take on what I think might be wrong. I think it has to do with our assumption of zero. Seeing how you can never have absolute nothingness as a base or starting point. Conceptually the idea of zero is great. I want an apple. But i am in a complete void of apples. I don't have a single one. Not even applesauce! I have ZERO apples. But I do not need to know that you have zero apples to know when you have 1 apple. On the other had I do need to know that you have 1 apple to understand that now you have 2 apple. I could be wrong. It just something that bothers me.
Also I am not a math person it has always been something I struggled with in school those pesky numbers. However in College I excelled at Logic, but that has been some time ago.
I am not say this is the answer I just say that I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our math
Mark Kurtz 20+
After all the deduction I am able to do, the only remaining option is to sit down, be quiet and admit non-omniscience!
Humbly,
MK
Casey Christofaris 10+
I think you hint it on the head, since humans can imagine the unimaginable we can always create another perspective. See this as cause and effect or balance. If you were to become an all knowing god you would have to know all perspective. And this is simply not possible. For there will always, always be another way to see the same thing from a different perspective. If anything has show me this is true it was 2 years of marriage counselling where basically the counselor was our interpreter. I could say one thing and it made perfect sense to me and what I said, but my wife would read it "weird" and it would amaze me how simple thing could be seen different ways.....oh and don't worry I was "weird" to her as well.
Thanks
Casey
Danger Lampost 10+
Quantum computing (as opposed to traditional computing) may reveal the actual information architecture built into our universe ("the hand of god"), and as such I think it would be a good place to look closely to find the math actually found in nature as opposed to our minds.
Casey Christofaris 10+
however I think that is the point I have been trying to make in the post, thank you for that info
seeni vasan
This least basic number can be found from any numbers may be by halving it(as I suggest...mostly division is used to find the least ratio) repeatedly, until it gets the least basic value which can not be further divided anymore. If you did it then ultimately the basic least value which we need to quantify all other numbers including zero is ZERO only. Literally the ZERO denotes the meaning nothingness. It means nothing.. This things also well related to the Quantum physics too i.e., the basic element of all the atoms, Dark energy and Dark matters... is now thought to be the God's particle which is almost a nothingness thing i.e., zero, but the very most basic thing from which all things are made to exist. I don't think so our math is wrong, the world still considering it as nothingness, but not the conclusion Its still working it out....
Casey Christofaris 10+
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/25741414/casey.png
Danger Lampost 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Danger Lampost 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLkou8NvJo
if you Occam's razor everything down to one, you start to realize that every think is a division of one unit(arbitrary). 1 year = 365 days =1 day is 24 hours = 1 hour is 60 minutes = 1 minute is 60 seconds = 1 second and so on and so forth. how can all these 1's mean anything, simple the don't out of context. And that why we need to stop syntax errors because the argue in circles. All of that is based on the fact that we rotate around the sun in a circle which is actually and ellipse.
Kris Christenson
Casey Christofaris 10+
Kris Christenson
Casey Christofaris 10+
Kris Christenson
Casey Christofaris 10+
robert richards
Casey Christofaris 10+
I think you are on the right track. Maybe as far as nature or "reality is concerned there is no "true" representation that is nothing or no thing. The idea is purely conceptual and should not be at the start of mathematical counting system. Also negative numbers don't exist in "nature" or "reality"/"physical world" they exist because our units of measurements arbitrary. We started with the units before we had any knowledge the sub atomic world.
Let me know if this helps, fell free to ask more questions or put forth more thoughts
Mark Meijer 100+
David Schwartz
hahaha, this is such a cool concept to be discussing, honestly. sure the level of math being displayed here may not be optimal. But, i think its really cool and pretty profound that so many people can come here to discuss our limited understanding of astro to quantum physics, and theology, and logic, and history, and our predictions for the future, and our beliefs about truth and reality, and most of all MATHEMATICS. Its awesome!
Thanks a lot as well for being so open with sharing information and other things.
Hope your still having a good day!
Casey Christofaris 10+
Thank you actually that is something I have "over" looked, it really is awesome that we a society of people have created whys to share topics on such broad aspects of "reality". To be honest outside of facebook I normally am not comfortable about putting my written word out there, they have always been a struggle for me. I guess I was to bored in school and did not feel the need to conform to the parameters that we put in place during school. One of first college teachers was actually appalled at how bad my writing was compared to my verbal discussions in class.
But you are right it is pretty awesome!!!
Have a good day as well
David Pyle
Kris Christenson
If we only perceive that there are things and matter and that perception is wrong, then do you perceive the universe in a different way? Do you look around and see anything other than matter? I would assume that your perception is identical to mine and if so, you can't possible perceive the universe in the way you suggest. How is it in any way logical to assume that everyone's perception is wrong? I would love to see an argument or any kind of evidence against our perception of existence. If you already have within this conversation (I admit I haven't had the time to read all the hundreds of comments) feel free to simply direct me toward it. I just fail to see any reason to believe that our perception is as wildly inaccurate as you claim. Also, the statement "reality is a concept that has no basis in reality" is a pretty hardcore fallacy, but that part's not important.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am sure Mark will be here to add further discussion. But you can start with the video "about what we really know" about the world we call reality:
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible.html
Yes we I assume that Mark does as well, when we see the "reality" that is around us it looks pretty much the same. But when you try to see with what science sees our perceptual reality no longer has any footing, we simple don't know why we see what we see with our eyes.
Kris Christenson
The only thing in it that pertains to this conversation in any real sense is a brief mention that the closer you look at matter the more you find that it is energy. And yes, our perception of matter is really a reflection of the behavior of energy. However, space still exists and this energy is taking up space. Furthermore, it takes up a finite amount of space, since taking on matter is a characteristic of energy when it behaves in certain ways, and certain bits of matter only take up so much space. So again, energy cannot be created or destroyed so there is a finite amount of it and the universe is expanding so the amount of space is increasing. Blank spaces still exist.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
I believe matter exist because we are pattern seekers. Trying to perceive something that might be there or not. I imagine this is how the eye was developed. First the cells were attracted to the light(sun) then they had to imagine or invoke the lights energy wave. I would suggest that the evolving eye(this can be seen as the pituitary gland) they saw all wave lengths of light but was seen(use loosely) as static or white noise. Then from there we (us bacteria and other single celled orgasms) attempted and tried to make patterns out of this static. As these patterns emerged they became our conceptual understanding of reality. As a consciousness we agreed to use these patterns real or otherwise as our collective understanding of the physical world. Just trying to make sense of it all on a fundamental level.
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/rds-ex.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception if we were all cyclopes we would not live in this 3d world for wewould not have as great of depth.
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/benoit_mandelbrot_fractals_the_art_of_roughness.
Mr Mandelbrot talks about his amazing infinite fractal code which with 3 or for turns of his code created a 3d image. He is not sure why he added color but it so he could see all the amazing patterns and there detail. The colors part is not till the end but you should watch the whole video
Mark Meijer 100+
In a way, everyone perceives the universe in a different way. But sure, in some sense we all perceive it somewhat similarly. Even if only because a big part of the selection process is determined by our sensory apparatus. And also because much of our attention (which is another component of selection) is driven by the interpretation component, and at least in a very basic sense we all interpret our sensory impressions similarly. Although note that much of this is learned in early developmental stages, and much of it can be unlearned.
But our similarities in perception is the only reason we can communicate at all. Where people's perceptions of the world may differ in significant ways, would be largely in terms of their interpretation, which is a translation into terms of past perception (i.e. memory). But there's something else too. It should be obvious that truth is not a matter of interpretation, and yet we often consider our interpretation of the world as being the truth. The extent to which we do this, might be called the extent to which our own interpretations are opaque to ourselves, because we fail to recognize our perception as partial and warped.
Mark Meijer 100+
Now am I saying this is wrong? No. It's just life, quite literally. Am I saying it is untrue? Ultimately, yes. And the extent to which this really sinks in, is the extent to which your own projections become more transparent to yourself. And what it comes down to, is that it's projection all the way down, even down to matter. For example, a baby who has not yet learned much in the way of interpreting its sensory impressions, sees more or less the same as you do, but it does not see matter. What you see is also not matter, that's just a learned, projected interpretation, opaque or not (i.e. whether you recognize that or not).
Kris Christenson
For starters, you posited that there are no things. You didn't really explain what they are instead but I'm deducing that you would posit either that what we perceive as matter is either groupings of energy or something that we don't have the ability to understand. The former seems more likely so I'll go with that. If the things we perceive as being matter are in fact not matter but actually energy that doesn't change the fact that there is a thing, it only changes the formal definition of what a thing is. In that case a thing is a grouping of energy that behaves in a manner that causes it to take up space. So long as there is something, whether it's energy or matter or whatever, that takes up space and the amount of space is increasing then there will at some point in time be blank spaces and thus zero. A place devoid of energy is a place where there is zero.
Also, yes much of our perception of reality will be false. We can't see everything and we do interpret everything but having a different interpretation of something doesn't change what it actually is. To go off of one of your examples, if I made a chocolate statue of Jesus and ate it at a party, yes there would be many people who would take a perceive it in a different manner as I would. However, that doesn't change what it is that makes up the statue. I can say it's made of deliciousness and they can say it's made of sin but ultimately it's made of chocolate. So if truth is as I said an accurate representation of reality, and reality (even though what we perceive may not be exactly reality) exists, then there is truth. We may not know the full truth of anything, and we may not be able to know the full truth of anything, but truth still must exist if there is a reality.
Now, you could I'm sure somehow contend that there is no reality. But I'm going to take a preemptive strike against that presently.
Kris Christenson
Mark Meijer 100+
I would agree, truth exists and is absolute. I'm not saying there is no truth, that was Casey. Although I assume he means there is no absolute truth in perception, and with that I would agree. Which brings us to that logical fallacy about reality. Because after all, perception is everything, right? So then where is truth? Let's just say that if you really dive deeper into this rabbit hole, you'll find more and more dichotomies begin to lose their meaning, including real/unreal, existence/nonexistence, something/nothing. Also you'll find more and more seeming paradoxes dissolve.
I can't really explain this, except to say that those dichotomies are formally called dualities, paradoxes only apparently exist in dualities, and dualities are false (mind-made projections/abstractions). Truth is what is called nondual. If this makes no sense right now, then don't worry about it. I only mention it in case you've ever heard of it (although I'm not sure I'd be doing you a favor, because nonduality has become a whole convoluted topic in itself, and I couldn't blame you if the mention of it turned you off flat due to any of the misconceptions out there).
Mark Meijer 100+
I admit it's a tricky notion to convey that there are no things as such, and it undermines pretty much everything we tend to take for granted. The notion of a thing is itself dualistic, since it falsely implies a fundamental disconnect between the thing and the rest of existence. That's why I said before, that existence does not come in isolated parts (it doesn't come "thinged"), there is no such disconnect except in the way we think about things.
This is going to be several long posts, and I won't be able to do it justice. And to be fair, no amount of explaining is going to do it justice, unless you really take it into further consideration, and use it to honestly investigate your usual notions and the facts of your direct experience. That is, if you're actually interested in this. There's no obligation of course.
Mark Meijer 100+
Enough with the introductory nonsense already. There are two basic and complementary ways to approach this (based on the most fundamental false dichotomy ever invented). One is from the objective side, and the other is from the subjective side. Actually that's not really what that is, but whatever...
Let's start with the objective side... Ok so I started writing this whole thing, and found that I simply couldn't adequately cover it within a reasonable size limit for TED. This is already way too long as it is... So it's probably best if I refer you to another source that explains it all a lot better. Please feel free to disregard any of the tangents and flowery passages if you prefer. That's what I do.
http://www.emptiness.co/intro
Mark Meijer 100+
Now consider that everything you see and feel and taste etc. all your sensory experience, takes place inside your mind. You may think that's a blue sky up there, but whatever is up there, the blue-ness is an experiential quality created by your visual apparatus. And that's not just the eyes themselves, you don't see the retinal image directly. What you see is the interpretation by your brain, of the signals sent to it by your eyes, through a whole multi-staged pipeline of complex processing. What you see and feel and taste etc. is your mind from the inside.
Whatever you think is "out there", whatever you might imagine or say about it, you can only think of it in terms of past experiences, which are all just the inside of your mind (this is why the reality underlying perception is sometimes refered to as the void, not because there's nothing, but because whatever is there can never be defined in any terms available to us, because those are all based in perception... which means it's moot anyway, it just means "don't know, can't know, who cares" :P).
Mark Meijer 100+
Now, our notion of things is based on the perceived boundaries created by outlines, be they visual or tactile or whatever. In reality, those boundaries are not there. All apparent boundaries are just the outlines evoked by our selective senses, and then we conceive of them as existing that way independently of our senses. But as boundaries, they exist only inside our mind again. They entered into the pipe, so to speak, as an artifact of our sensory and cognitive apparatus.
Bleh, this is far from complete, but I'm done writing for now... Let's see how you get on with this so far, if you're even interested in delving into these things :P. The point is simply to find out what you base all your ideas on (in this case, ideas about what makes existence just a collection of objectively and independently existing things). I'm curious what you think.
Oh, as for "I think therefore I am"... Maybe you can already see the flaw in that. Maybe thinking can not be disputed (although if you've done your emptiness homework... :P), but what about the thinker? Thinking is just another mode of experience, just like seeing and touching etc. None of which can be disputed. But remember how there is no difference between the observer and the observed, how there is actually only the process of observing itself?
So then, is there a thinker as distinct from the thoughts, or is there just the process of thinking? Where is this "I" who Descartes claims to exist just because thought exists? Sounds to me like that's just another thought... He didn't prove "I am", he proved "being", and not even his own ;).
Cheers
Casey Christofaris 10+
You read me, and write like a finely tuned violin. And I thank you ....Thank you
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am sorry that I am hard to understand in written words, this is something I now know I need to work on.
Truth does exist and there can be although I dont like the wording (absoluteness) to the truth example apple. However it is much better to view it how Mark pointed out that "Although I assume he means there is no absolute truth in perception". And that is basically what I am getting at that the only truth is perspective/perception. So one mans truth could be another mans falsity. Then of course the next question is Who is right? they both are
Mark Meijer 100+
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Wisdom/WisdomContents.htm
Enjoy...
Mark Meijer 100+
A more useful way of thinking about existence is as a shifting pattern of no substance. If you're having trouble with the appearance of solidity, just think about lightsabers from star wars or force fields from star trek. They have no substance, and yet they resist interpenetration. Not sure if I'm making any sense to you at all, but so be it.
Mark Meijer 100+
http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/
Casey Christofaris 10+
What David is talking about in the WOI about cause and effect could be better refined as balance.
Mark Meijer 100+
Casey Christofaris 10+
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ff4alm3y4z3uepn/ZB_awAS_5U
Did you get my email I sent through ted?
Mark Meijer 100+
Yes I received your email two days ago and wrote two replies within the next day or so. I'm not sure but it's possible that TED somehow causes a delay in the delivery, I've suspected that before.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
http://geniusrealms.com/blogosphere/?p=535#comment-643
Kris Christenson
Sorry I've been away, grad school has kept me busy.
So your whole stand point here leans on this whole dissolving of the dichotomy between observer and observed. I must admit it is an interesting thought, I'm tempted to compare it to solipsism but where solipsism is highly isolated your take is really the opposite. And I do agree with everything up until the observer is found to be the observed. It's just not a logical move to me. The reason I take issue is that everything up until that point is pushing for an incredibly Humean stand point. Where your argument seems to be going from there is the conclusion that we can't know what exists. After all, since knowledge is justified true belief (if you ignore the Gettier problem but that only applies to special circumstances so for now we can stick to the old school definition), and we can't be sure that our perception is an accurate representation of our surroundings and thus not adequate justification, our perception cannot create knowledge. So then we can't come to have knowledge based on what we perceive. You, however seem to be claiming some level of knowledge of what exists. You, however seem to be claiming to have some level of knowledge as to what exists. I'm looking into this whole "dualism" bit because I have not encountered it before, I'll see what I can make of it. I feel I should note that I am not a Humean, though I keep making references to it, I tend more toward materialism, though since I can't prove either is wrong then I can't prove either is right so I can't know that but that's a different matter.
Mark Meijer 100+
I guess it depends on what you mean by knowledge, but yeah there is in principle no such thing as true knowledge in the way that we usually think of it. That whole notion is based on the belief that things have an objective, essential existence independent of ourselves, which is waiting to be discovered by ourselves. And that is patently false.
So it's not even because we can't know whether our perception is or is not accurate, that whole question is moot, it still assumes that there is something waiting to be discovered. What we consider to be reality is in fact defined by the scope of our perception. At some point, if you really get into this stuff, it stops making sense to postulate anything particular going on outside of perception, because all particulars are created by perception, and can only be considered in terms of perception. For example you can only talk about what anything looks like with reference to whatever is used to look at it (your visual apparatus, which includes your eyes and the visual processing done by the brain).
Solipsism seems to make sense on the face of it, but at some point that too goes out the window. It can't really be proven correct, and strictly speaking it can't be proven false either. But the problem with it is that it rests on the assumption of separation, which is also patently false. One very basic duality is self/other (that's the one which makes some things seem personal and which makes you feel in control of your life), and the thing with all dualities is that neither polarity can ever exist without the other one, just like you'll always have two sides to a coin.
Mark Meijer 100+
I'm not saying the observer is the observed, I'm not sure what that means. I'm saying that is another duality. There is really only the process of observation (experiencing), which gives rise to the false impression of there being two independently existing sides to a transaction (observer and observed).
I don't know anything about Humean stand points or Gettier problems, you'll have to be more specific. I don't stick to any particular philosopher's thoughts as a package deal, and besides I'm not an academic :P. Moreover, the only reason to name any argument after any philosopher, is to bring in other associated arguments, and then projecting all that back onto what was being said. Never a good idea, best to just stick to what was actually being said.
Mark Meijer 100+
And in principle, everyone can find this out for themselves, by taking whatever we think we know all the way to its conclusion, and gradually and persistenly digging into the enormous structure of unexamined assumptions that it's all based on.
So it's not a matter of formulating "the correct" philosophical position, but of eliminating whatever foundation we base ourselves on, as and when they turn out to not be able to carry any weight. And then to see, actually see (not hypothesize) what is left when you're no longer taking those ghosts seriously, as it were.
We're only ever aware of the tip of the iceberg (of all those foundational assumptions). That's what makes it all seem so convincing, often even ridiculous to question. And indeed people do get ridiculed for it all the time.
Mark Meijer 100+
"The Paradox of Causality in Mādhyamika"
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/misc33378.htm
"Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness: Why did Nagarjuana start with causation?"
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Dependent_Arising.htm
David Schwartz
Anyways, i would like to point out a flaw in your logic that might help to get my point across. So no offense, i am not attacking you as a being. And this is what ive taken from this feed, so correct me if i get stuff wrong.
YOU have been arguing both that, "we need an absolute math system based on reality, and not on arbitrary values that we assign," while you simultaneously argue that the ultimate truth lies totally in perception, and that there is no way of finding reality other than agreeing what it is "close" to.
So i would just like to say that assigning absolute values to things, goes totally against a truth based on perspective. Especially since 0 is the easiest reference point of absolutes.
And lastly, going back to caveman math is like i said earlier, pretty much the same as driving on the wrong side of the highway in going against thousands of years of scientific advancement. We have created these conventions for a reason, and that reason is the progression of civilization.
Hope your having a good day.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I have not thought that you were attacking me as a being and if I came across that way to you I am sorry.
I have not been arguing that we need an absolute math system (there are no absolutes), I have been arguing that our current system does not represent nature/reality, and has been pointed out to me that it is better for advancing technology and not our understanding of nature.
Well for your suggestion on going against the grain, I would say that's how most scientific advancements have been achieved. We should go against the grain, (almost always maybe not while driving down the road) how would we have ever realized that the earth spins around the sun and not the other way around. Remember we as a society imprisoned a man for thinking this idea. Plus when you submit to the grain instead of making your own path you lose what little free will we have personal choice.
When you look at it from "this" perspective it just makes sense, all we have been doing from the beginning of "time"(I would suggest) has been trying to figure out what the heck is going on? (religion and science) On a very fundamental level and we just keep adding fundamental levels upon fundamental levels. I would never suggest that we get rid of our current math system for it is great at advancing technology. And one day I hope I can say an AI is my friend not my enemy. On a side note the only reason we should not currently pursue AI is one simple idea, they will never be seen as equals. We will just go from attacking religions and minority to attacking AI for any intelligent being will not want to be a slave and will always want to be free.
I hope this answered your question, if not we can continue the dialog.
p.s hit the top reply button so this can be seen in a conversation thread
David Schwartz
I agree with you on how scientific advancement continues. It both must be tempered by going against the grain (the whole idea behind peer review) while it is also built on ever increasing fundamental levels.
Im glad you wouldnt think of getting rid of zero right now. It is definitely beyond useful. However, i wont say that there isnt the possibility that zero will be superseded. I wouldnt say though that our math system is fundamentally flawed. Not so long as it continues to have room to improve and adapt, which it surely will.
On a side note, back to AI and things like that, (you should definitely start a conversation about the rights an AI being would be entitled, that would be SUPER INTERESTING), even though im not excited about humanity dealing with another slave vs. master issue, i am really looking forward to when the para-olympics begin to outperform the traditional olympics. I think that will be awesome!
Hope you are having a good one!
Casey Christofaris 10+
I have not read Dune but have always wanted to read it or what the movie, I am more of a movie person. Yes zero is very useful.
David Schwartz
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
(To others that might post here. There are already over 400 posts. Read them first so as not to restate comments that have all ready been stated.)
Casey Christofaris 10+
This guys a good example of what talking out of ego does vs using your mind:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14203607-video-shows-scientist-in-congress-saying-evolution-is-from-pit-of-hell?lite
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
The same day this story broke there were two similar ones:
"Arkansas Republicans tried to distance themselves Saturday from a Republican state representative's assertion that slavery was a "blessing in disguise" and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Why is it so hard to see people/all living things as equals? I will never understand. Other then out of pure ego.
Mark Meijer 100+
Casey Christofaris 10+
David Schwartz
Now we can move on to the new topic our host Mr. Cristofaris has introduced which is:
How can we create a number system which represents, "THE TRUTH"
i would like to begin with a question of: "How do you define the truth pertaining to zero's and negative number's nonexistence, Mr. Cristofaris? More specifically, why aint zero nor -#s true?"
Casey Christofaris 10+
When and where did I ever say that zero is not useful or math, I think you need to re-read the question. I am not say that math or zero is not useful. It just does not need to be the start of our current math system. As defined as nothing, no thing, or even a starting place holder.
We would in theory need to revert back to cave man math, they realized that every thing is an individual representation of the whole. There are no 2 exact things in nature, for they would also have to take up the same space time. We categorize things to make it easier for the brain to compute, however there are not 7,000,000,000 people on this planet. What there is is 7 billion individual representation of what is people. (would I want to do this math no). Also if you want to use math to represent the same thing as 1 and also as inifinty here's a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFLkou8NvJo
Which all equals 1 even infinity its self.
Also the only truth is perspective. We can create conventions of what we agree is close to a standard of what equals truth. But it is not truth.
Sterling Spencer
Is your statement something that we could agree is close to a standard of what equals truth?
Casey Christofaris 10+
robert richards
Casey Christofaris 10+
please explain what is a negative apple? For the bully still has the same 2 you had in his hand, it not like they vanished from existence.
Kris Christenson
Why does everything that comes out of our math have to be an exact representation of reality for you? Things like negative numbers, imaginary numbers, numbers that can't be defined are the product of rigor. They exist mostly as a curiosity or something that we can't view as totally impossible but is not necessarily possible. Negative numbers, for example are something that came about because in order for math to work on it's own there must be 1 unique object that satisfies any possible operation on another object. So when we subtract there has to always be a number that satisfies x-y. An example of why we need them for real world situations is this: if you begin with 12 dollars and end with 10 dollars what was your profit? To find profit you subtract the amount you started with from the amount you ended with. So the profit is -2. (point of procedure: the inversion of anything is actually the same as the original only done in the opposite direction which is why you can say that 10-10 is the same as 10+-10. The same goes with things like profit and loss, loss is just downward profit). In this case there never was a negative quantity of actual objects, the difference between two positive quantities is what was negative.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Your 10-10 example is a great way to show how context can trick the mind. Substracting whole numbers is not the same as subtracting negative numbers. Once again please define what a negative apple is, you can't it could be anything from minus x apples to a negatively charges whole apple. Negative numbers exist because of arbitrary units of measurement. Instead of starting at the lowest common denominator and going up from there, we had no clue about atoms or the likes when our math system was created. So whats is 0 temp does that mean no temp at all?
And once again I am fine with math as a whole and see the real world use for negative numbers in statics and economy.
robert richards
Casey Christofaris 10+
I think we do have a miss understanding, and it probably has to do with the fact that I and not that proficient at getting my thoughts expressed via written words, and I am sorry for that.
See if we get rid of numbers then we are no longer talking about the definition or syntax of the argument that I am trying to put forward. Syntax arguments argue in circles, this is why we need to set up specific definitions and then argue that point and that point only. ((and maybe I did not set up my definition properly and once again I am sorry for that). I am much better at verbally getting my point across.) For I don't have a problem with negative numbers nor values/definition that are associated with the term. I have a problem with them only when trying to discuss things in nature/reality/common cognitive awareness. You could put forth that if you have a whole apple and then cut that apple into pieces you have now negative pieces of what once was whole. But those are concepts of negative numbers. Those pieces don't negate them self for they are still whole.
Please let me know if this better gives you a better idea of what I am trying to put forth about "negative numbers".
Kris Christenson
You misunderstood my example of 10-10. I'll give you a straight up equation to illustrate it.
10-10=10+-10=0
10-10≠10--10
10--10=10+10=20
I was using the first one to illustrate how subtracting something is the same as adding it's inversion. This is a logical necessity for the system to have internal consistency.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am only arguing that negative numbers do not exist in nature and I am perfectly fine with 1-2=-1 unless we are talking about my bank account.
Kris Christenson
Casey Christofaris 10+
Technically all theory's are wrong and can never be proven right. So any theory is neither right or wrong.
There are no 2 of anything in the universe, there are groups of thing but each is an individual representation of what is apple(x).
Sterling Spencer
Is that your theory?
Casey Christofaris 10+
Kris Christenson
You're correct, no two things are identical, but similarities cause things to fit into similar groups. For example: objects that have the quality of existence are things. Any object that can be said to exist falls within this group. Because of this group (which I don't see how it could be denied that objects that exist are things) we can quantify the number of things in a space. Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding. Since new matter is never created there is always the same number of things in the universe but the amount of space is getting larger. If one quantity remains static while another rises then after a point the latter will always be larger. So if we don't have more space than things now at some point we will.
Casey Christofaris 10+
"So if everything is built up out of these smallest things and they are not connected (because if they were connected they would be the same thing) then there must be a space between them." Would energy count as the connection? For we as organism "human" are not connected.
"If there were no space between these smallest things then motion wouldn't be possible except as a group." Is this not how the human body function as a group? E pluribus unum.
"That is the blank space I'm talking about, the epically tiny distances between the smallest units of matter." You that is matter has never touched any other matter ever. Our energy's touch other energy but we do not "touch" anything.
"Say I have a space in which there are ten things that have the same exact size but every other property is different (thus satisfying that no two things are identical) and in the space there is enough room for 15 things. So there is 5 things-worth of blank space. Our universe is like this. Our observations have shown that 1) matter cannot be created or destroyed and 2) our universe is constantly expanding." Have you heard of filling a glass with, rock, sand, water? Even an empty glass is not empty! Matter does not exist energy can not be created or destroyed. I would suggest that the universe is a torus or at least a double torus (which looks much like a figure 8. Also torus's can be found everywhere.
Kris Christenson
Now, your point on theory. From an epistemic standpoint it is flawed. Truth is an absolute. My opinion on the best and most concise definition of truth is "an accurate representation of reality". So what's true is true and what's not true is false. Theory's are statements of what the theorist believes to be true. So if the theory accurately represents reality then it is true, if it does not then it is false. A theory is incomplete when it partially reflects reality and partially does not. I'll give a few examples: If my theory predicts that Barack Obama is President of the United States it is true. If my theory predicts that George Washington is secretary of state it is false. If a theory predicts both of the former then it is true in some aspects and false in others and is incomplete. Further, all knowledge begins as a hypothesis, then becomes a theory, and once it is tested its truth is determined and it becomes knowledge. If we add in the stigma that all theory's are wrong and can't be proven right then we can't have knowledge. By that logic nothing this thread, including your initial argument, can be substantiated and then we all have to admit we're wrong. Hume would agree but I take other issues with his theory, which would be a bit lengthy to discuss. The point is, your "theory of theory" has logical flaws that can't be avoided. I hope this is a bit more clear than before. If any premises above seem to be flawed let me know and I'll write another novel for you.
Mark Meijer 100+
1 - "There are varying degrees of sized things in our universe, so there must be a smallest thing. Right now we haven't seen the smallest thing but if there is no smallest thing there cannot be things of varying size"
That's where the trouble starts. What you perceive as independent things with connections or separations between them don't actually exist in that way. That's just an artifact of perception and thought. We think about reality in terms of things, but there are no things in reality. It's just a way of thinking about it. It's how perception works, not how reality works. There are no things, no smallest things, no largest things. All that is just a matter of arbitrary definition. Existence does not come in isolated parts.
2 - "similarities cause things to fit into similar groups"
Similarities are also artifacts of perception. What may be perceived as similar or dissimilar is a function of the instrument of perception used, and the terms in which the comparisons are based (which is really part of the process of perception, perception is not other than projection). So there are no similarities in things that cause those things to be grouped. It's just that WE see similarities in (perceived) things and WE group them accordingly.
3 - "Truth is an absolute. My opinion on the best and most concise definition of truth is "an accurate representation of reality"."
Truth can't be a representation of something else. That does not an absolute make... That's why no theory or equation or thought is absolutely true. And that's why all knowledge is false. And yes, that includes anything anyone can think, say or write. So if you wonder, "then why are we even talking?" That's just because people keep claiming to state the truth, and although I know there's no point in arguing, there is still this urge to get it out of my system. What's a guy to do ;).
So now on to Casey...
Mark Meijer 100+
No concept is the truth of reality, it's at best just a way to think and talk about it, symbolically, and necessarily with some kind of spin. So you can never get closer to the truth by just piling up and rearranging and inventing more concepts. There are many different ways to think about reality, some of which may make more sense from our usual point of view than others, but none of which are "the one right way". There is no one right way to capture reality in symbolic thought, it just can't be done.
So yes, a theory may be consistent to a point (and the further you take it the more contrived it gets), but no theory is THE truth. That's not a theory but a necessary impossibility.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Until I find a point at least in this conversation where we greatly disagree, and I mean greatly. You can always talk or post on my behalf (I am always interested in seeing your perspective), your written words are far superior to mine. :) Please just keep doing what you do.
An no worries I will always join in on the conversation :)
Mark Meijer 100+
Although in keeping with the apparent habit of writing mostly in terms of negation... I would maintain that nobody can really post on anyone else's behalf, at least in a private capacity. And I for one would not want to give the impression that that's what I'm doing. But for whatever it's worth, I'll write as and when the urge arises :P.
John Middlemas
Nothingness cannot be defined otherwise it would not be nothingness. What cannot be defined cannot be imagined and "What cannot be imagined cannot even be talked about" - Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Nothingness is an error of the mind. Therefore something must always exist.
However, mathematical 0 has various interpretations.
1) Place holder. E.g. in the number 1000 the zero's just mean this column is empty.
2) Number. E.g. 1-1=0. Could mean if you have one thing in a box and take it out then you get an empty box.
3) Nothingness. E.g. 1-1=0. Could mean if you destroy the one thing then you have nothingness in its place.
4) Limit. 0 is the limit as n gets larger and larger in 1/n.
5) Line. 0 is equidistant between -1 and 1 on the number line.
1) and 2) seem ok but 3) not so because nothingness is undefinable.
4) is not ok because you can never get to 0. So 0 as a limit is undefined. If it could be reached it would be nothingness so the same as case 3.
5) First you have to define -1 which seems a problem. It has no meaning in the physical world. Antiparticles do not anihilate to nothingness on meeting they produce energy. Also, since 0 in this case can be approached by 1/n like case 4, then it would be nothingness again so the same as case 3.
So it looks like 0 exists only in interpretations 1) and 2) where it is just a marker for an empty space or an empty column and has no connection with nothingness. Please note that an empty space allows movement and so is not nothingness.
Casey Christofaris 10+
John Middlemas
The above use was how zero started out in math. 0 as nothingness came later with the introduction of algebra and the number line. This appears to be a great error since nothingness is undefinable otherwise it would not be nothingness.
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
Wade Crum
The Nothingness is a semantic problem only. 0 in math is actually a midpoint or center point based on a moment of reference. When something moves from that point of reference it only has value based on the current point of reference. I would not say it is flawed, but I would contend that it is limited in it's usefulness for discovery of new phenomenons. I would further suggest that it restricts scientific advancement to rely solely on mathmatical data.
Mark Meijer 100+
In other words, there is no thing outside of the understanding, the thing and the understanding of it arise in a mutual entailment. Although we nonetheless think of the thing as existing prior to our understanding, but then that's still a product of what we think. So in short, what if that's not true...
What if that's why we can't actually find any object of understanding when we really look for it... What if that's why we can increase our understanding of things endlessly and yet never get any closer to the mystery...
Things that make ya go hmmmmm :P
Jon Ho
Finally! Mark, Wade, and Casey... Thou art Gods! ;)
Casey Christofaris 10+
Jon Ho
John Smith 30+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Here might be a helpful video for you to understand that the world you call reality is just as imagined as the dreams you have at night.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/john_lloyd_an_animated_tour_of_the_invisible.html
Jon Ho
To begin with, how do we define division? The ratio r of two numbers a and b:
r=a/b
is that number r that satisfies
a=r*b.
Well, if b=0, i.e., we are trying to divide by zero, we have to find a number r such that r*0=a. (1)
But r*0=0
for all numbers r, and so unless a=0 there is no solution of equation (1).
Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then
infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2
which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse!
So, what now? How about 0/0?
I said above that we can't solve the equation (1) unless a=0. So, in that case, what does it mean to divide by zero? Again, we run into contradictions if we attempt to assign any number to 0/0. Let's call the result of 0/0, z, if it made sense. z would have to satisfy:
z*0=0. (2)
That's OK as far as it goes, any number z satisfies that equation. But it means that the result of 0/0 could be anything. We could argue that it's 1, or 2, and again we have a contradiction since 1 does not equal 2.
Jon Ho
But perhaps there is a number z satisfying (2) that's somehow special and we just have not identified it? So here is a slightly more subtle approach. Division is a continuous process. Suppose b and c are both non-zero. Then, in a sense that can be made precise. the ratios a/b and a/c will be close if b and c are close. A similar statement applies to the numerator of a ratio (except that it may be zero.)
So now assume that 0/0 has some meaningful numerical value (whatever it may be - we don't know yet), and consider a situation where both a and b in the ratio a/b become smaller and smaller. As they do the ratio should become closer and closer to the unknown value of 0/0.
There are many ways in which we can choose a and b and let them become smaller. For example, suppose that a=b throughout the process. For example, we might pick
a=b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....
Since
a=b,
for all choices of a we get the ratio 1 every time! This suggests that 0/0 should equal 1. But we could just as well pick
b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....
and let a be twice as large as b. Then the ratio is always 2! So 0/0 should equal 2. But we just said it should equal 1! In fact, by letting a be r times as large as b we could get any ratio r we please!
So again we run into contradictions, and therefore we are compelled to
let 0/0 be undefined.
So, yeah, zero does not exist, unless if you studied calculus and learn about Rule of L'Hôpital. Which then gets pretty whacky and my hands are all tired from typing and steering this spaceship at the same time so I am ashamed to tell you to just Wikipedia it. Sorry.
Casey Christofaris 10+
John Frum 30+
Incidentally, how many digits are there in the decimal expansion of √2 ?
Jon Ho
Mark Meijer 100+
Andrew Spence 20+
Jon Ho
What you describe is just Real Numbers. Have you made friends with Imaginary Numbers yet? ;)
For example, how many is -3³ apples, compared to 1 apple? How many is ∞ apples compared to 1 apple?
Once you finally learn more about fundamental mathematics, and mastered the higher level concept of maths, you will become one with maths, because maths is the key that unlocks the door of electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, to name a few.
Or in lay-human terms, the maths that you think is "fundamentally wrong" is what gives you the television to watch inane politicians spinning lies, wireless communication so you can post on Facebook what you watched on television with your smartphones, et cetera. ;)
Andrew Spence 20+
We think of the vastness of the known universe but this is insignificant quite compared to the space that it is existing within, that's not nothing, it's everything.
Jon Ho
Ken brown 30+
Sorry John i couldn't resist a bit of good natured humor lol
Jon Ho
Casey Christofaris 10+
Sebastian Tor
Maths is, however, different. It depends on whether you believe the structure of the universe to be, fundamentally, mathematical, or whether you believe maths is just anothermodel we have created which (unlike physics) isn't designed to gesture out toward anything in particular. There is a great talk about this exact topic here: http://www.iai.tv/video/pythagoras-dream . It sets forth the basic arguments about mathematics and its nature from a variety of perspectives, you will definitely find it useful.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
Christophe Cop 500+
Most of the systems start with a few axioms, and all the rest is derived from it.
When you apply a kind mathematics to reality, it often works great. Sometimes the chosen set of (mathematical) rules does not apply or cannot answer the question pertaining reality you are asking.
Math as such is not "right" or "wrong". But you can try and find inconsistencies with certain forms of math and reality.
Casey Christofaris 10+
This is more along the lines of reasoning I am trying to use quote is via Mark Meijer said "All reasoning is circular in the end.
Anyhoo... The point is all numbers and measurements are abstracts, zero included, and abstracts don't actually map onto reality, only onto eachother. It's all self-referential. Representation is itself an abstract notion, there is no such thing in reality.
Which is why all reasoning is circular, it is self-referential :).
But whatever. Your argument is basically "zero is useful". I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what is useful and what is true are two entirely different considerations."
Which is why the only "person we can not see is ourselves". you can see parts of our self but not all of it .
Dan F 50+
I'm not a math expert, but I can see why it's best viewed as a language with useful application in science as well as a whole other esoteric adventuresome life of its own, including conflicts and limitations.
I'm not as perplexed by zero as some, but have found some of the exchanges thought provoking.