The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Questions that make you think...

my answer

In this forum, questions are asked which are really tough to answer. Some philosophical, some regarding morality and many others. Have fun, and post your own personal tough questions!

Postby bionic » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:08 am

can't a cone, or,funnel, or a pyramid sort of 'square a circle'?..like, have a square base that slowly evolves into a circle that gets smaller and becomes a point up at the tip?

I was looking at a pic of one of the great pyramids and that thought came to m ind recently
Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams
User avatar
bionic
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:59 am

Way to think outside the box..



When I think of pyramids, this image comes to mind, along with the dollar bill pic.
This is a band's logo, called the Illuminenenaughty






















Image





Here is one of their songs just for kicks and giggles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewzYVMjIRw0
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby greeney2 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:48 pm

No, a pyramid has 4 straight sides and a square base from base to tip, so it is impossible for a pyramid to contain a cone, since a cone has no straight sides. Also, the distance from the top to any point on the base of the cone is equal distant, where a Pyramid would only be equal at 90 degree intervals. If you had a pyramid, and blew it up like a ballon where the base remained square and the corners and sides made a tranition to cone shape, I;m sure there is a differnt geometry term for that kind of shape. I;ll be with a couple of math geniuses Christmas day and will ask what that would be called. My son in law and his Father, both have Masters degrees in Mathmatics.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9591
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:21 pm

think that's the frustum of a cone
er no. I misread your description.
yeah, not sure if that's a figure with a name, prolly obscure.
anyway, squares/circles are 2D while pyramids/cones/and pyramid-cones are 3D.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby at1with0 » Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:48 pm

"Limits To Science: God, Godel, Gravity"

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physic ... el_gravity


Here is my comment:
An important question is whether or not a TOE will be finite in length. I am taking 'TOE' to be, as a working definition, a complete description of reality or a complete description of everything that exists. Reality is infinitely vast at least for the reason that it contains all the integers, not to mention the vastness of the physical multiverse. So a TOE can be an infinite document. But like the digits of pi, perhaps this infinitely long document can be computed to arbitrary precision in a finitely long program, set of instructions. Then one *might* consider this program which generates a TOE to arbitrary precision to be "the" TOE, a compression of an infinitely long document into a finitely long document, thus showing that reality at its core does not possess the trait of Kolmogorov randomness. Being that reality contains the uncomputable, it *seems* unlikely that everything can be finitely describable.

However, I believe that there is a TOE (complete description of reality) whose *form* can be written down. This TOE has a "shape" to it, but without specifying any more details than that. It's an existence proof of a plausible form a TOE could be in. It is roughly based on Tegmark's article entitled the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (available on arxiv.org) which can be broken down to rely on the axiom that reality is independent of humans which is possibly controversial.

The argument is made that a TOE can be in the form of a logical structure which is a tuple consisting of an underlying set, a set of distinguished constants (like zero), functions (like successor), and relations (like less than) on this underlying set. Making the additional assumption that if there is a structure such that *all* logical structures can be "embedded" within it, then this type of universality endows such a structure with the same structure as reality. Thus this sort of ultimate structure would be in an intuitive sense like ultimate reality. Thus a description of this ultimate structure would be a description of reality.

To do this, I employ a different-than-usual set theory called NFU which stands for new foundations with urelements as explained by Randal Holmes' textbook on NFU. The NFU has been shown to be consistent which cannot be said of the more famous ZF or ZFC set theories. The NFU also has a universal set (a set containing all sets) and a "stratified comprehension theorem" which essentially states that any object of the form {x : F} where F is any "stratified" formula is a set in NFU. An example of a *non*-stratified formula F is the infamous formula used in Russell's paradox: x is not an element of x. Thus the object considered in Russell's argument isn't a set and from this argument, no Russell-type contradictions can be derived from the universal set axiom + stratified comprehension.

Within NFU, it is possible to see that the object which contains *all* structures is a set. Then one can form the "reduced product" of all structures, using this set as the index set. One feature of a reduced product is that it is a logical structure and another feature is that every structure used to form the product (in this case, every structure) is embedded within the reduced product.

The reduced product of all structures is the ultimate structure as described a few paragraphs above.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby Tairaa » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:13 pm

(so caught up in theory..ignpring the importance of lab)


Well you know what they say.
A gram of observation (or working knowledge) is worth a ton of theory.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:22 pm

Meanwhile, I was doing well in mathematics. It was fun to solve mathematical problems, but in a deeper sense mathematics was boring and empty because for me it had no purpose. If I had worked on applied mathematics I would have contributed to the development of the technological society that I hated, so I worked only on pure mathematics. But pure mathematics was only a game. I did not understand then, and I still do not understand, why mathematicians are content to fritter away their whole lives in a mere game. I myself was completely dissatisfied with such a life. I knew what I wanted: to go and live in some wild place. But I didn't know how to do so. In those days there were no primitivist movements, no survivalists, and anyone who left a promising career in mathematics to go live among forests or mountains would have been regarded as foolish or crazy. I did not know even one person who would have understood why I wanted to do such a thing. So, deep in my heart, I felt convinced that I would never be able to escape from civilization.


Ted Kaczynsk
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby khanster » Wed Dec 29, 2010 7:55 pm

Can a finite string of symbols capture the essence of everything?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html



An Infinity of Universes

Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in an infinite super universe or "multiverse" (Linde 1994). Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a different form than us, others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life.

Several commentators have argued that a multiverse cosmology violates Occam's razor (see, typically, Ellis 1993, 97). This is wrong. The entities that Occam's law of parsimony forbids us from "multiplying beyond necessity" are theoretical hypotheses, not universes. For example, although the atomic theory of matter multiplied the number of bodies we must consider in solving a thermodynamic problem by 1024 or so per gram, it did not violate Occam's razor. Instead, it provided for a simpler, more powerful, more economic exposition of the rules that were obeyed by thermodynamic systems.

As Max Tegmark (1998) has argued, a theory in which all possible universes exist is actually more parsimonious than one in which only one exists. Just as was the case for the breaking of the global conservation laws, a single universe requires more explanation-additional hypotheses.

Let me give a simple example that illustrates his point. Consider the two statements: (a) y = x2 and (b) 4 = 22. Which is simpler? the answer is (a), because it carries far more information with the same number of characters than the special case (b). Applied to multiple universes, a multiverse in which all possible universes exist is analogous to (a), while a single universe is analogous to (b).

The existence of many universes is in fact consistent with all we know about physics and cosmology. No new hypotheses are needed to introduce them. It takes an added hypothesis to rule them out—a super law of nature that says only one universe can exist. That would be an uneconomical hypothesis! Another way to express this is with lines from T. H. White's The Once and Future King: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

An infinity of random universes is suggested by the modern inflationary model of the early universe (Linde 1987, 1990, 1994 ; Guth 1981, 1997; Smith 1990; Smolin 1992, 1997). As we have seen, a quantum fluctuation can produce a tiny, empty region of curved space that will exponentially expand, increasing its energy sufficiently in the process to produce energy equivalent to all the mass of a universe in a tiny fraction of second. Andre Linde proposed that a background spacetime "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics (Linde 1987, 1990, 1994; Guth 1997). In this view, our universe is one of those expanding bubbles, the product of a single monkey banging away at the keys of a single word processor.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby at1with0 » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:19 pm

khanster wrote:Can a finite string of symbols capture the essence of everything?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html



An Infinity of Universes

Within the framework of established knowledge of physics and cosmology, our universe could be one of many in an infinite super universe or "multiverse" (Linde 1994). Each universe within the multiverse can have a different set of constants and physical laws. Some might have life of a different form than us, others might have no life at all or something even more complex or so different that we cannot even imagine it. Obviously we are in one of those universes with life.

Several commentators have argued that a multiverse cosmology violates Occam's razor (see, typically, Ellis 1993, 97). This is wrong. The entities that Occam's law of parsimony forbids us from "multiplying beyond necessity" are theoretical hypotheses, not universes. For example, although the atomic theory of matter multiplied the number of bodies we must consider in solving a thermodynamic problem by 1024 or so per gram, it did not violate Occam's razor. Instead, it provided for a simpler, more powerful, more economic exposition of the rules that were obeyed by thermodynamic systems.

As Max Tegmark (1998) has argued, a theory in which all possible universes exist is actually more parsimonious than one in which only one exists. Just as was the case for the breaking of the global conservation laws, a single universe requires more explanation-additional hypotheses.

Let me give a simple example that illustrates his point. Consider the two statements: (a) y = x2 and (b) 4 = 22. Which is simpler? the answer is (a), because it carries far more information with the same number of characters than the special case (b). Applied to multiple universes, a multiverse in which all possible universes exist is analogous to (a), while a single universe is analogous to (b).

The existence of many universes is in fact consistent with all we know about physics and cosmology. No new hypotheses are needed to introduce them. It takes an added hypothesis to rule them out—a super law of nature that says only one universe can exist. That would be an uneconomical hypothesis! Another way to express this is with lines from T. H. White's The Once and Future King: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

An infinity of random universes is suggested by the modern inflationary model of the early universe (Linde 1987, 1990, 1994 ; Guth 1981, 1997; Smith 1990; Smolin 1992, 1997). As we have seen, a quantum fluctuation can produce a tiny, empty region of curved space that will exponentially expand, increasing its energy sufficiently in the process to produce energy equivalent to all the mass of a universe in a tiny fraction of second. Andre Linde proposed that a background spacetime "foam" empty of matter and radiation will experience local quantum fluctuations in curvature, forming many bubbles of false vacuum that individually inflate into mini-universes with random characteristics (Linde 1987, 1990, 1994; Guth 1997). In this view, our universe is one of those expanding bubbles, the product of a single monkey banging away at the keys of a single word processor.


They may be random but are they not recursively denumerable?
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby khanster » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:25 pm

at1with0 wrote:
They may be random but are they not recursively denumerable?




Indeed :D

http://www.facebook.com/eternitytohere? ... ere?v=info



You can turn an egg into an omelet, but not an omelet into an egg. This is good evidence that we live in a multiverse. Any questions?
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to Questions that make you think...

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests