Word Clearing

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There is a key point here. Math represents a realm entirely isolated and consiged to the mental universe. It is entirely of the nature of being entirely dependant upon definitions, significances and postulates.

But there is a whole other huge world of definitions and significances that relate directly to observations and experiences in the various environments around each of us (the physical environment, mental environment, the physical body, inner space, etc).

To some degree concepts, definitions and significances can well define and describe, or not well define and describe the realities we experience around us. There can be seen a panorama, or a scale, running from left to right (arbitrary which side you choose), for ANY aspect of reality, with totallay incorrect and inexact concepts, definitions and significances on the left, and correct and exact concepts, definitions and significances on the right.

People need to be aware of HOW and in what ways their ideas relate to and correctly or incorrectly define and describe the world around him or her. This is generally a hazy fog for most people. The connections are many, varied from person to person, and for the most part unconscious to most people. Thus most people disagree on many things - it couldn't be any other way.

I suppose math could be called a "truth" because it involves an entirely postulated reality, that has nothing to do with any external reality. I do find it interesting how an entirely INTERNAL and subjective realm could contain such a "pure truth". Math is considered by some to be the very highest and purest form of "thought". I wouldn't call it "knowledge", since you sure aren't "knowing about" anythng "out there". Again it is sort of strange that the "highest form of knowledge" would be an entirely self-created postulated "thing" with no direct correlation to anything "out there".

I supose that I LIKE that notion.

The thetan has been proven!

Most concepts, ideas and significances derive from the personal experiences or education into things and events surrounding the person (the body, mental world, emotions, physical environment, inner space, etc). In other words the ideas and concepts that any person possesses derive their existence and life from other things pre-existing, out there somewhere, to the ideas and concepts about these things.

My point is only that there can be a sort of degree of legitimacy to how well various concepts, significances and words well-describe or fail to well-describe the different objects of common experience. There are no postulated things here, as in the inner universe of pure math (whihc is based wentirely on postulated thngs, and not a=non any experience of anything).

But that isn't the whole of it . . . . . .

This is a very good explanation! But I would add that it is the mind, and only the mind, that gives the world the shape we see.

It is our Trandscendental Aesthetic (as Kant called it) that gives the world the shape we see.

When you look at a cup you don't see what is there...billions of atoms. You see a cup.

Even Cause and Effect isn't in the real world.

We see one thing happening and then we see another thing happen.

We say that one caused the other. We are wrong sometimes, but the idea of cause and possibly the reality of cause is not in the physical universe.

It is in us.

Cause and effect, space and time, may or may not be in the real world.

Probably they are not. But they are apriori concepts in our minds and are how we format the input that our senses give us. (I may be using the word format wrong, since I am very unknowledgeable about computers).

Cause and effect, and space and time are empirical in the sense that these are necessary elements for us to analyze and interpret the physical universe, but they are our mental tools, not real tools or things in the physical universe.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

Well, many people don't understand math for the simple reason they don't understand the symbols. But a house wife who has the job to make sure that the money covers all needs are certainly capable of using the money in a way so there are both money for food and clothes. She might not label it "math" but it is in fact math anyway.

Is 1/0 difficult to understand? Well, lets us first look at a simple example: 1/4, like if there is one cake and 4 persons to share it it is easy for most people to cut the cake in four parts and and each person gets a quarter. But if there is one cake and no one around to share it, thus the division 1/0, it is quite easy to understand that you can't share a cake between nobody, it simply doesn't make sense.

Making the seemingly complicated simple. I like that!

Great analogy. I will remember that. But that's not what would happen.

First, there are 4 people to share the cake, then 2 people to share the cake, then 1 person to share the cake. With people, you can't go "smaller" than one person; you can't have half of a person. The "quantum jump" from one to zero makes it impossible to move from one to zero in increments with your example. But in math one can go "under" or smaller than one. In math the denominator can become numbers less than one, and THAT is what makes all of the difference here.

To apply the situation of people and a cake to the equation, one would have to be able to create "partial people". Passing from one, gradiently getting smaller, bit by bit, towards a point where there is so little that it approaches zero people. What is weird is that no matter how small you make the piece of the person, down to a hand, a finger, a fingernail, and even down to a cell of a piece of the fingernail, all cases except the very last (zero - non-existence of any more parts of some person) involve the participation of some thing. The total absence of anything is hard to fathom!

That is what happens when applying non-Aristotelian logic to math or Aristotelian logic to math. Aristotle sticks to quanta or a digital view of yes or no, black or white, on or off, or ZERO or ONE. It is always one or the other. No half-ways with Aristotle. Non-Aristotelian logic involves gradients and is more analog in nature. One must think in terms of non-Aristotelian logic to grasp the theory of limits, numerical series and the equation 1/0.

While the meataphor is cute, it is quite strictly inapplicable to the actual math equation.

 

[Leon]

There is a key point here. Math represents a realm entirely isolated and consiged to the mental universe. It is entirely of the nature of being entirely dependant upon definitions, significances and postulates.

But there is a whole other huge world of definitions and significances that relate directly to observations and experiences in the various environments around each of us (the physical environment, mental environment, the physical body, inner space, etc).

To some degree concepts, definitions and significances can well define and describe, or not well define and describe the realities we experience around us. There can be seen a panorama, or a scale, running from left to right (arbitrary which side you choose), for ANY aspect of reality, with totallay incorrect and inexact concepts, definitions and significances on the left, and correct and exact concepts, definitions and significances on the right.

People need to be aware of HOW and in what ways their ideas relate to and correctly or incorrectly define and describe the world around him or her. This is generally a hazy fog for most people. The connections are many, varied from person to person, and for the most part unconscious to most people. Thus most people disagree on many things - it couldn't be any other way.

I suppose math could be called a "truth" because it involves an entirely postulated reality, that has nothing to do with any external reality. I do find it interesting how an entirely INTERNAL and subjective realm could contain such a "pure truth". Math is considered by some to be the very highest and purest form of "thought". I wouldn't call it "knowledge", since you sure aren't "knowing about" anythng "out there". Again it is sort of strange that the "highest form of knowledge" would be an entirely self-created postulated "thing" with no direct correlation to anything "out there".

I supose that I LIKE that notion.

The thetan has been proven!

Most concepts, ideas and significances derive from the personal experiences or education into things and events surrounding the person (the body, mental world, emotions, physical environment, inner space, etc). In other words the ideas and concepts that any person possesses derive their existence and life from other things pre-existing, out there somewhere, to the ideas and concepts about these things.

My point is only that there can be a sort of degree of legitimacy to how well various concepts, significances and words well-describe or fail to well-describe the different objects of common experience. There are no postulated things here, as in the inner universe of pure math (which is based entirely on postulated things, and not upon any experience of anything). Math involves pure thought entirely divorced from any common world of shared experience.

But that isn't the whole of it . . . . . .

Good one, Gadfly

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

Making the seemingly complicated simple. I like that!

Great analogy. I will remember that. But that's not what would happen.

First, there are 4 people to share the cake, then 2 people to share the cake, then 1 person to share the cake. With people, you can't go "smaller" than one person; you can't have half of a person. The "quantum jump" from one to zero makes it impossible to move from one to zero in increments with your example. But in math one can go "under" or smaller than one. In math the denominator can become numbers less than one, and THAT is what makes all of the difference here.

To apply the situation of people and a cake to the equation, one would have to be able to create "partial people". Passing from one, gradiently getting smaller, bit by bit, towards a point where there is so little that it approaches zero people. What is weird is that no matter how small you make the piece of the person, down to a hand, a finger, a fingernail, and even down to a cell of a piece of the fingernail, all cases except the very last (zero - non-existence of any more parts of some person) involve the participation of some thing. The total absence of anything is hard to fathom!

That is what happens when applying non-Aristotelian logic to math or Aristotelian logic to math. Aristotle sticks to quanta or a digital view of yes or no, black or white, on or off, or ZERO or ONE. It is always one or the other. No half-ways with Aristotle. Non-Aristotelian logic involves gradients and is more analog in nature. One must think in terms of non-Aristotelian logic to grasp the theory of limits, numerical series and the equation 1/0.

While the meataphor is cute, it is quite strictly inapplicable to the actual math equation.

Well written. It is very hard to give examples of the complicated things.

The purpose of my "cute" example was to underline two things:
1) To provide an example of math that relates to the real world, which I did in fact.
2) To give an example that shows that it is actually quite easy to explain to a layman that division by 0 is not possible, it is quite obvious.

It is much more difficult to understand or explain in plain words that you can divide by a fraction compared to understanding or explaining that you can not divide by 0.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

By the way. I thought 1/0 = infinity. Give or take a few inches.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

This is a very good explanation! But I would add that it is the mind, and only the mind, that gives the world the shape we see.

It is our Trandscendental Aesthetic (as Kant called it) that gives the world the shape we see.

When you look at a cup you don't see what is there...billions of atoms. You see a cup.

Even Cause and Effect isn't in the real world.

We see one thing happening and then we see another thing happen.

We say that one caused the other. We are wrong sometimes, but the idea of cause and possibly the reality of cause is not in the physical universe.

It is in us.

Cause and effect, space and time, may or may not be in the real world.

Probably they are not. But they are apriori concepts in our minds and are how we format the input that our senses give us. (I may be using the word format wrong, since I am very unknowledgeable about computers).

Cause and effect, and space and time are empirical in the sense that these are necessary elements for us to analyze and interpret the physical universe, but they are our mental tools, not real tools or things in the physical universe.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This is fun!

I am going to have to go back and reread the history of philosophy and finally really pull out the dusty books I have on Kant and TRY to read them (again). Gasp! German philosophers . . . . . .

But, with the cup, as with everything "out there", YES it is really mainly empty space (since each atom is primarily empty space), and it is to that degree an illusion that it is perceived as solid, BUT there is a whole other COMMONLY AGREED upon playing field when one pulls back and decreases the resolution.

Forget about all that about whether the mind creates it, or if it exists separate from the mind, or some combination of the two.

A tree really means and has value to any person as a source of shade, for beauty (when viewed from far away), as limber, as firewood, and possibly a few other things. That is how it is experienced and used in the more lower resolution reality. It is common for everybody.

You might have different thoughts and ideas about the tree or coffee cup, you might have different needs and requirements about the tree or coffeee cup, but fundamentally there is a tree or coffee cup (regardless HOW it got there, whether by mind, or not or both), and there is a separate IDEA about the tree and the coffee cup that followed after the perception and experience of the tree and the coffee cup. The experience of the each is fairly common and not unique. Sensible minds would understand that each person can describe the tree or cup correctly or incorrectly, and have a legitimate or an illegitimate conceptual description of the tree or coffee cup. Of course, the values, meanings, requirements and purposes of and attached to the tree or coffee cup may and will be different for each person (since those things are entirely arbitrary).

One can talk about "cause and effect" not existing in the real world, and that is a fun mental game, but it has no use or application when one pulls back from such an anal-retentive pushed-way-up-close high-resolution view. (I am sure many people would correctly describe certain "German philosophy" to be "anal-retentive" in nature) Who cares that the picture on the computer screen is actually made up of millions of tiny pixels? When one is pulled back and viewing from the perspective of normal common viewing, then one sees a picture, NOT the "truth" of the millions of tiny pixels, and everybody sees the same picture.

People commonly confuse these different levels of resolution, in philosophy and thought. Different realities and experiences present themselves at different resolutions of experience. Different rules and laws apply at different zoom levels. I hate to use analogies, as I feel it is somewhat cheating, but it does make the point.

It is meaningless. In this reality, pulled back to normal-living human resolution, just about everything seems to have a cause and an effect as far as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) goes. That is not necessarily true for that which is doing all of the thinking - the awareness, consciousness, a thinking entity. The laws of cause and effect probably do not apply there, at least not in the same ways. That is entirely speculation, and I would have to take a better and closer look to make it anything other than speculation.

Interestingly, the universe of math is free from the constraints of cause and effect, because it is such a clearly postulated set of definitions, principles, rules and theories that also shares no common space with any other mind. I might change my mind on that if I can be encouraged to look at it differently.

Have at it!!!!!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

snip

Most concepts, ideas and significances derive from the personal experiences or education into things and events surrounding the person (the body, mental world, emotions, physical environment, inner space, etc). In other words the ideas and concepts that any person possesses derive their existence and life from other things pre-existing, out there somewhere, to the ideas and concepts about these things.

My point is only that there can be a sort of degree of legitimacy to how well various concepts, significances and words well-describe or fail to well-describe the different objects of common experience. There are no postulated things here, as in the inner universe of pure math (which is based entirely on postulated things, and not upon any experience of anything). Math involves pure thought entirely divorced from any common world of shared experience.

But that isn't the whole of it . . . . . .

It seems to me that you are disregarding a priori knowledge.

Any knowledge that comes from experience is by its very nature contingent, particular, and historical, and cannot be certain, necessary, timeless or universal.

So only pure knowledge can be apriori knowledge. Otherwise it is relative.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

By the way. I thought 1/0 = infinity. Give or take a few inches.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I sort of covered that earlier. It depends which "proof" you read.

Originally, most people conceived that 1/0 = Infinity. It makes sense, in a certain way. One must arrive at this through the concept of a sequential series of numbers, where "1" is in the numerator, and smaller and smaller numbers are in the denominator. As the denominator approaches zero, the number gets larger and larger and larger. This involves the theory and definition of the concept "limit". Anyway, as the bottom number gets smaller and smaller, the whole result gets larger and larger, until theoretically as the denominator goes to zero, the whole thing goes to infinity.

It is the transfer point, of a something becoming a nothing that causes the trouble. (in this case in the denominator)

But also, some philosophers follow another proof, and the result in that case is unable to be defined.

But, yeah for me, I always liked the idea of 1/0 = Infinity. I am not sure if either result has practical uses in various fields of engineering or chemistry. That might give at least some idea of how the assumption of either as true might have differeing practical results in the physical world of applied science and math.

Any ideas?:confused2:

 

[FinallyMe]

Gadfly, one small change or addition to your dissertation would be 0/0. This computes to either 1, or infinity (aka undefined).

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

This is fun!

I am going to have to go back and reread the history of philosophy and finally really pull out the dusty books I have on Kant and TRY to read them (again). Gasp! German philosophers . . . . . .

But, with the cup, as with everything "out there", YES it is really mainly empty space (since each atom is primarily empty space), and it is to that degree an illusion that it is perceived as solid, BUT there is a whole other COMMONLY AGREED upon playing field when one pulls back and decreases the resolution.

Forget about all that about whether the mind creates it, or if it exists separate from the mind, or some combination of the two.

A tree really means and has value to any person as a source of shade, for beauty (when viewed from far away), as limber, as firewood, and possibly a few other things. That is how it is experienced and used in the more lower resolution reality. It is common for everybody.

You might have different thoughts and ideas about the tree or coffee cup, you might have different needs and requirements about the tree or coffeee cup, but fundamentally there is a tree or coffee cup (regardless HOW it got there, whether by mind, or not or both), and there is a separate IDEA about the tree and the coffee cup that followed after the perception and experience of the tree and the coffee cup. The experience of the each is fairly common and not unique. Sensible minds would understand that each person can describe the tree or cup correctly or incorrectly, and have a legitimate or an illegitimate conceptual description of the tree or coffee cup. Of course, the values, meanings, requirements and purposes of and attached to the tree or coffee cup may and will be different for each person (since those things are entirely arbitrary).

One can talk about "cause and effect" not existing in the real world, and that is a fun mental game, but it has no use or application when one pulls back from such an anal-retentive pushed-way-up-close high-resolution view. (I am sure many people would correctly describe certain "German philosophy" to be "anal-retentive" in nature) Who cares that the picture on the computer screen is actually made up of millions of tiny pixels? When one is pulled back and viewing from the perspective of normal common viewing, then one sees a picture, NOT the "truth" of the millions of tiny pixels, and everybody sees the same picture.

People commonly confuse these different levels of resolution, in philosophy and thought. Different realities and experiences present themselves at different resolutions of experience. Different rules and laws apply at different zoom levels. I hate to use analogies, as I feel it is somewhat cheating, but it does make the point.

It is meaningless. In this reality, pulled back to normal-living human resolution, just about everything seems to have a cause and an effect as far as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) goes. That is not necessarily true for that which is doing all of the thinking - the awareness, consciousness, a thinking entity. The laws of cause and effect probably do not apply there, at least not in the same ways. That is entirely speculation, and I would have to take a better and closer look to make it anything other than speculation.

Interestingly, the universe of math is free from the constraints of cause and effect, because it is such a clearly postulated set of definitions, principles, rules and theories that also shares no common space with any other mind. I might change my mind on that if I can be encouraged to look at it differently.

Have at it!!!!!

You're right in that Kant can be a bitch to read. But what I am talking about (and Kant) is not the resolution in viewing something. I am talking about how our minds format things so that they can be perceived in the first place.

And we format experiences as space and time. and cause and effect.

And as for mathematics, it preceedes science.

Nobody believed Michael Farraday's theories until James Clerk Maxwell proved it mathematically. Then it was accepted.

Einstein was led to his theories on relativity by trying to solve a problem of the speed of the earth.

The calculations that all others made always came to zero. It was his trying to solve this problem that started him on the path to his relativity discoveries.

And also, denigrating other theorists with terms like "anal retentive" cheapens this thread, which I think is interesting.

I think you are underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of mathematics when you dismiss it as a "fun mental game."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

It seems to me that you are disregarding a priori knowledge.

Any knowledge that comes from experience is by its very nature contingent, particular, and historical, and cannot be certain, necessary, timeless or universal.

So only pure knowledge can be apriori knowledge. Otherwise it is relative.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I would like you to come over to my house. I will have you stand there as I toss a baseball directly at your skull at 60 mph. As it strikes your head, please look at me and honestly tell that what just happened cannot be certain, necessary, timeless or universal.

This is one thing Hubbard said that I always liked - involving his disregard and dislike for overly-intellectual "ivory tower" types. I could always find affinity and agreement with his idea about folks who reside in some ivory tower of thought entirely segregated from any and all experiences.

God, I can't believe how people actually pretend they are doing something when they think with weird, vague abstractions like "pure knowledge", "universal", and "timeless". The baseball hits you in the fucking head! You can pick the baseball up, touch it, feel it, tosss it up and down, and have concepts ABOUT that baseball. Who cares if it is "relative"? Everything is relative here! What does that mean to say that, and of what importance does that have in any way?

I am talking about an attempt to really dig into ones own experiences of these things - not talk about theories and concepts of erudite over-intellectualized gumheads. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it . . . . )

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I sort of covered that earlier. It depends which "proof" you read.

Originally, most people conceived that 1/0 = Infinity. It makes sense, in a certain way. One must arrive at this through the concept of a sequential series of numbers, where "1" is in the numerator, and smaller and smaller numbers are in the denominator. As the denominator approaches zero, the number gets larger and larger and larger. This involves the theory and definition of the concept "limit". Anyway, as the bottom number gets smaller and smaller, the whole result gets larger and larger, until theoretically as the denominator goes to zero, the whole thing goes to infinity.

It is the transfer point, of a something becoming a nothing that causes the trouble. (in this case in the denominator)

But also, some philosophers follow another proof, and the result in that case is unable to be defined.

But, yeah for me, I always liked the idea of 1/0 = Infinity. I am not sure if either result has practical uses in various fields of engineering or chemistry. That might give at least some idea of how the assumption of either as true might have differeing practical results in the physical world of applied science and math.

Any ideas?:confused2:

Yeah, cool. I am just saying that while we do not see any real world application to some mathematical abstracts, often scientific discoveries are later made as a result of them.

This reminds me of a joke:

A physicist and a philosopher were having a conversation. The physicist said when explaining the Big Band theory that when there was nothing a spark occured which set off the Big Bang. The philosopher said "If there was nothing, there couldn't have been a spark." The physicist said he knew alot about many things, and for a split second when there was nothing there was a spark which started the Big Bang. The philosopher replied, "I don't know much about many things, but I know alot about nothing."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I would like you to come over to my house. I will have you stand there as I toss a baseball directly at your skull at 60 mph. As it strikes your head, please look at me and honestly tell that what just happened cannot be certain, necessary, timeless or universal.

This is one thing Hubbard said that I always liked - involving his disregard and dislike for overly-intellectual "ivory tower" types. I could always find affinity and agreement with his idea about folks who reside in some ivory tower of thought entirely segregated from any and all experiences.

God, I can't believe how people actually pretend they are doing something when they think with weird, vague abstractions like "pure knowledge", "universal", and "timeless". The baseball hits you in the fucking head! You can pick the baseball up, touch it, feel it, tosss it up and down, and have concepts ABOUT that baseball. Who cares if it is "relative"? Everything is relative here! What does that mean to say that, and of what importance does that have in any way?

I am talking about an attempt to really dig into ones own experiences of these things - not talk about theories and concepts of erudite over-intellectualized gumheads. (I'm sorry, I couldn't help it . . . . )

If me or anyone else gets hit in the head with a baseball going 60 miles an hour I guarantee you that for me or that person that for a few minutes nothing will be certain, necessary, timeless, or universal.

But what will occur is that my mind will format what happened in the context of space and time and cause and effect.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

And you are getting a little too emotional.

I am pointing out to you that our minds format what our senses perceive; and that the formating is a necessary condition for us having perceived anything in the first place.

And I am not talking about resolution. I am talking about space and time, cause and effect.

I'm going to use another computer term, but I am on shakey ground here because I am not very computer literate.

Space and Time, and Cause and Effect are the protocals in our mind's ability to take in sense data. Plain and simple.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[HCObringOrder?]

= = 1/

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly, one small change or addition to your dissertation would be 0/0. This computes to either 1, or infinity (aka undefined).

Eeeew . . . . I forgot about that.

There are THREE ways to look at that (I think).

First Case. Start with equally large numbers on the top and bottom, such as 993,000,000,000/993,000,000,000.

That of course equals "1". The same number divided by itself always equals "1". THAT is the way it is defined. Something divided by the same something equals ONE. Or more technically, any integer divided by the same integer equals ONE. It gets a bit technical. Now, have the numbers BOTH get smaller at exactly the same RATE. In each case, as each number gets smaller, the other gets smaller at exactly the same time. So, the ratio of x/x is always maintained at each change along the way.

Note: It is a bit absurd to call a number or integer a "something". It has no correlation to any "something" of common experience. It is NOT any something in any way like a car, house, arm, emotion, thought or sensation are a something. THAT is part of the problem with certain aspects of math - one is trying to apply thoughts about the common world of physical and mental experience to the entirely POSTULATED universe of math. Numbers and integers actually aren't things or somethings or any things at all! They are clearly defined concepts, and nothing more.

Or you can think of the series as:

x/x, (x-1)/(x-1), (x-2)/(x-2), (x-2)/(x-3), (x-4)/(x-4), all the way until [x - (x-1)]/[x-(x-1)], where we are at 1/1. Note: x = some "large" whole integer.

Then we get to 1/1. How do we transition to zero. Well, at this point we go analog and get smaller across a gradient, in fractions or partials of "1". It is harder to write as a decreasing fraction divided by the same decreasing fraction series. I suppose this is as good as any:

(1/2)/(1/2), (1/3)/(1/3), (1/4)/(1/4), (1/5)/(1/5), etc on up to something like (1/393,111,295)/(1/393,111,295) and then on up and up to something like (1/777,666,555,444,333,222,111)/(1/777,666,555,444,333,222,111), where we have the same incredibly small number divided by itself (still ONE).

Or, in a general form using decimals instead:

.3/.3, .2/.2/ .1/.1, .000001/.000001, and so on keeping up to .00000000001/.00000000001, and so forth forever. Getting smaller and smaller. Again, at every point the ratio is still "1". Because there is a "thing" being divided by itself (whatever the hell THAT means). The problem always gets to the last final transition from something to nothing, where the change is no longer gradual or analog, but now, in ONLY this case, becomes digital and of the nature of a quanta. What could previously be conceived of as very slow and gradual change (possibly really just finer gradients of changes in integral relationships - or quanta), now gets to a point where instead of changing from something to something, we jump from something to nothing. THAT is the problem area. Changing from some very small something to a nothing!

Once there is "nothing" divided by "nothing", well it is nonsensical really. Technically, from a certain perspective, one is dividing something by itself, but in this unique case there isn't really any something there to start with. The rules of division ONLY apply to somethings. It is a fallacy to attempt to apply these ideas to a world of nothings. So, while one could sloppily understand 0/0 = 1, it is more correct to have 0/0 = nonsense (undefined).

0/0 = Infinity; derives from a false sequence of logic. People take all cases of ANY integer divided by ZERO, and get the result Infinity. So that:

7/0 = Infinity
1/0 = Infinity
376,111,297/0 = Infinity
.0000000000000345/0 = Infinity

The idea gets reworded as: Any number or integer divided by Zero equals Infinity.

But, and this is a big "BUT", ZERO is NOT an integer. Every other whole number or fraction involves INTEGERS and NUMBERS. Zero is sort of a lack of any numerical value of any kind, but not even that is right. It is a screwy idea really. So, one cannot take ZERO and divide it by itself:

0/0 = more nonsense

Actually, (any number or integer)/0 = nonsense

Second Case: Have the numerator get smaller FASTER than the denominatir does so.

Third Case: Have the numerator get smaller SLOWER than the denominator.

In case two and three, it would matter if the RATE of decrease changes or stays constant. Interesting graphic representations could result from running the above type equations in a computer.

But regardless, the problem always gets to that point where a something has to make the JUMP to a nothing. THAT involves some fundamental aspect of sub-atomic particle physics, and quantum mechanics, but I am not sure WHAT?????:confused2: :confused2:

 

[Gadfly]

Yeah, cool. I am just saying that while we do not see any real world application to some mathematical abstracts, often scientific discoveries are later made as a result of them.

This reminds me of a joke:

A physicist and a philosopher were having a conversation. The physicist said when explaining the Big Band theory that when there was nothing a spark occured which set off the Big Bang. The philosopher said "If there was nothing, there couldn't have been a spark." The physicist said he knew alot about many things, and for a split second when there was nothing there was a spark which started the Big Bang. The philosopher replied, "I don't know much about many things, but I know alot about nothing."

The Anabaptist Jacques

I agree and I liked the joke!

In truth though, those theories about the Big Bang and how it all started contain "logically errors" involving unclearly or poorly defined terms.

 

[Gadfly]

If me or anyone else gets hit in the head with a baseball going 60 miles an hour I guarantee you that for me or that person that for a few minutes nothing will be certain, necessary, timeless, or universal.

But what will occur is that my mind will format what happened in the context of space and time and cause and effect.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

And you are getting a little too emotional.

I am pointing out to you that our minds format what our senses perceive; and that the formating is a necessary condition for us having perceived anything in the first place.

And I am not talking about resolution. I am talking about space and time, cause and effect.

I'm going to use another computer term, but I am on shakey ground here because I am not very computer literate.

Space and Time, and Cause and Effect are the protocals in our mind's ability to take in sense data. Plain and simple.

The Anabaptist Jacques

No actually, please check your perceptual apparatus, I am not getting emotional at all. I am having fun with this.

"our minds format what our senses perceive; and that the formating is a necessary condition for us having perceived anything in the first place"

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But I don't agree. I have done extensive experiments with my own consciousness - above and beyond all "thought".

For example, I have done a drill that I made up where I look at a sign with words (that can have meaning on various levels), and place my attention on it, for extended periods of time, while I allow all "meaning" to dissipate, and I get to a point where I ONLY see shapes and symbols, but not as words, with no meaning attached to the the letters of the alphabet. In that case I have allowed the mind "formatting" to go away and no longer interefere with "perception".

Explain to me beyond that sort of attached meaning to things, where and how my mind is formatting the perception and experience? You seem to be saying that somehow my mind first has to conceive of a tree before I can even see it or touch it. Yes? No? Please explain.

It seems likely that when a person is born one first experiences a total mush of undefined and random motion. Maybe not. I wouldn't say that the mind does anything, but rather awareness figures out how to recognize different shapes and forms as "unique" things. Awareness notices similarities and differences in shapes and activities. I do NOT see that some mind has to first "format" anything to have it be there for me or anyone else.

You are losing me here. I tend to think with this in a somewhat Hubbardian sense. I can experience this reality because I agree with the things in the same way everyone else agrees with them, including the shared space and time, and the shared agreements of cause and effect. That happens at a level FAR below any "mind" activity. I differentiate between postulates and agreements of a conscious aware entity, and a thinking or imagining "mind". To me these are not at all the same things.

Keep it coming. But, I need to be able to look at something in my own mental experience to have what you say make any sense to me.

 

[Panda Termint]

With the progressive dumbing down of educational standards in the world and the corruption that textinglish is bringing to us, and ...... <...snip>

Yes, Leon, even though your thread has been hijacked I'd just like to add something.
Some of the tenets who live here at ESMB just don't seem to understand the English language and it's subleties. They're failure to adhere to it's simple principals makes it obvious that your wasting you're time trying to educate them!

PS: My personal favourite is that vociferous critic who propounds at length but who can't spell "scientology".

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

No actually, please check your perceptual apparatus, I am not getting emotional at all. I am having fun with this.

"our minds format what our senses perceive; and that the formating is a necessary condition for us having perceived anything in the first place"

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? But I don't agree. I have done extensive experiments with my own consciousness - above and beyond all "thought".

For example, I have done a drill that I made up where I look at a sign with words (that can have meaning on various levels), and place my attention on it, for extended periods of time, while I allow all "meaning" to dissipate, and I get to a point where I ONLY see shapes and symbols, but not as words, with no meaning attached to the the letters of the alphabet. In that case I have allowed the mind "formatting" to go away and no longer interefere with "perception".

Explain to me beyond that sort of attached meaning to things, where and how my mind is formatting the perception and experience? You seem to be saying that somehow my mind first has to conceive of a tree before I can even see it or touch it. Yes? No? Please explain.

It seems likely that when a person is born one first experiences a total mush of undefined and random motion. Maybe not. I wouldn't say that the mind does anything, but rather awareness figures out how to recognize different shapes and forms as "unique" things. Awareness notices similarities and differences in shapes and activities. I do NOT see that some mind has to first "format" anything to have it be there for me or anyone else.

You are losing me here. I tend to think with this in a somewhat Hubbardian sense. I can experience this reality because I agree with the things in the same way everyone else agrees with them, including the shared space and time, and the shared agreements of cause and effect. That happens at a level FAR below any "mind" activity. I differentiate between postulates and agreements of a conscious aware entity, and a thinking or imagining "mind". To me these are not at all the same things.

Keep it coming. But, I need to be able to look at something in my own mental experience to have what you say make any sense to me.

I got what your saying. Let me see if I can make it clearer. I have a bad habit of stating my conclusion without showing my reasoning leading up to it.

First of all, I'm not talking about significance or meaning. I am talking exclusively for now about the concept of space and time, and cause and effect. So I am not talking about trees, etc. And I am not making a chicken or the egg argument.

So here goes: Reason is not a pupil of nature. reason is more like a judge compelling nature, the witness, to answer our questions.

It was thought that knowledge must conform to objects. But if this is the case then nothing could be known with a priori certainty. But if objects must conform to knowledge then a priori knowledge is possible.
Objects would have to conform to rules of understanding that exist in man a priori. In this way, the laws of nature can be given a priori proof, and then science can be established.

If the a priori forms in us are used by us in structuring our experience, then these forms cannot be applied beyond experience. The forms can apply to phenomena only.

So all knowledge begins with experience, but it is not derived from experience. Knowledge arises on the occasion of experience.

Experience can show us what is generally the case, but experience cannot show us what must be the case (this is what is meant by necessary--that which must be.) Experience can tell us what happened. But experience can never tell us what must be the case in the future. Experience can only tell us what was true in the past, it cannot tell us what is binding for the future. Only a priori reasoning can do that. Statements of mathematics or principles of physics are not derived from experience. They are a priori forms of thought.

Let me know if you are with me so far before I continue. Pick it apart so we can see if we are tracking each other.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Dulloldfart]

Is that clearing words to do with porn? or XXX word clearing? or just plain old clearing up the meaning of the word porn?

Sorry but I misunderstood your meaning? :confused2:

You didn't click on that "hot for words" link, did you? It's SFW, but maybe not safe for the wife if you stay too long. The person concerned is a real philologist, and "hot" is definitely appropriate.

Paul