|
|
T.H. Ray wrote:
> >
> > 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.
Says you. That may be true of R_n, but does not need to be true of all
spaces. You can construct such a fuzzy space where the probability is
not everywhere 1. I also believe that this is how physical space works.
I have already demonstrated that triviality gives a logical foundation
for the justification fo such an approach. The existence of a trivial
is indeterminate.
This thing is almost ready to take out of the oven.
> >
> > > 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.
Indeed it does. Much better than R_n ever will. Much better than string
theory.
Why dont you post a reason ?
Does an uncertainty "exist" in a physical sense ? Double slit
experiment directly implies that it does. There is only one way that
such a thing can happen. Existence of a trivial is indeterminate.
Would you agree that the wave-particle duality suggests topological
indeterminacy ?
> > > 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
The goose is cooked. Do you know where the geese go for winter ? They
go to Jalisco. Guadalahara. Someplace warm.
> > > 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.
> >
|
|