|
|
>
> T.H. Ray wrote:
> > >
> > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > > > In sci.math, huangxienchen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > <huangxienchen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote
> > > > on 30 Dec 2006 19:15:21 -0800
> > > >
> > >
> <1167534921.343346.288890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >:
> > > > > Why the hell is it that everybody shuts up
> right
> > > when things are
> > > > > getting interesting ?
> > > > >
> > > > > You guys are scientists ? I've had more
> > > interesting conversations with
> > > > > bricks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahem -
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that I made the claim that
> > > indeterminacy is inherent to
> > > > > mathematics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone out there have a pulse ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I dunno...how does one determine that? :-)
> > > >
> > > > As for your third question -- define
> > > "indeterminacy" in this context.
> > > > I'm frankly far from sure what you mean here.
> > > >
> > > > As for your second question...no, we're not;
> we're
> > > mathematicians,
> > > > presumably. What did you think this is,
> > > sci.physics? :-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Useless C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
> > > > void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p,
> sizeof(p),
> > > fptr); }
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Posted via a free Usenet account from
> > > http://www.teranews.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Signs of life !! (thank Gxd)
> > >
> > >
> > > I've done some looking and cant find anything on
> sets
> > > where set
> > > membership is probabilistic. I know that this
> plays
> > > hell with
> > > everything known to man, but was wondering if
> there
> > > is such a critter
> > > in the woods somewhere.
> > >
> > > I found something called O-theory, and fuzzy sets
> > > obviously, I dont
> > > know if there are any others.
> > >
> > > I think that space is "fuzzy" in a way. That is
> to
> > > say that for each
> > > point in space there corresponds a probability
> that
> > > the point exists.
> > > Fuzzy space. Energy is nothing more than
> functions on
> > > the fuzz.
> >
> > You really wonder why no one who has knowledge of
> > physics and the mathematics which supports it,
> wants to
> > engage in dialogue with you? It's not the facts
> that
> > are fuzzy -- your language is fuzzy. The fact in
> this case
> > is that every point of space exists with
> probability 1.
>
> I disagree that each point exists with probability 1.
> That is precisely
> what I am contesting.
If a point exists at all, it exists with probability 1.
You should go back and read that kindergarten link
on the meaning of existence. It might get you to first
grade.
>
> > You may mean to say something else -- but you are
> not
> > saying it.
>
> What I am trying to do is construct a mathematical
> tool which will
> describe space.
It doesn't.
>
>
> > If you are simply talking about quantum
> > nonlocality, that's not news.
>
> Do you have a mathematical tool which explains
> whichway information ?
> Does anyone posses such a model ? I dont think it's
> been done.
>
> Using my approach, whichway information becomes
> practically intuitive
> as to why it would occur. If you dont see any value
> in that then you
> are indeed a goose.
Then I'm a goose.
>
>
>
> > I don't think anyone
> > can really tell what you are trying to say,
> however.
> > It's your job to be clear, not the job of your
> listener
> > to understand what you are not saying.
> > >
> > > Nobody on sci.physics will even talk to me
> anymore,
> > > except Mati, and he
> > > thinks I'm crazy. Those wack jobs are still hung
> up
> > > on the unholy
> > > quadrangle of the "four fundamental forces".
> That's
> > > as whack as earth
> > > wind fire and water. What a bunch of alchemists.
> Then
> > > you got your
> > > string theorists - that's one heck of a yarn.
> > >
> > You might want to try a philosophy group.
> Seriously.
> > It doesn't have any effect here for you to call
> people
> > geese, or to pretend that you're winning a debate
> where
> > there is no debate, or to criticize sources that
> you deem
> > to be too elementary when it's more than obvious
> that
> > you fail to acknowledge elementary facts.
>
>
> You now claim that I dont have the elementary facts,
> when just
> yesterday your whole defense melted down and you had
> to forfeit the
> debate because you were unable to argue against the
> merits of my
> claims.
You certainly have a large capacity to flatter yourself.
Your claims are more than uninformed -- they are unformed.
Tom
>
>
> > Every worthwhile exchange in this forum depends on
> the
> > application of precise terms. Don't take my word
> for it
> > -- browse the threads.
> >
> > Tom
>
>
> I cant poke a little fun at myself ? I'm damn near
> ranting like the
> supergoose JSH. If that's not a good reason to mock
> someone, I dunno
> what is.
>
|
|