Does GOD play dice?? | Page 3 | Scientific Discoveries and Advancements | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Does GOD play dice??
January 1, 2011
11:22 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote:

But what is more "self evident" just might be what's more apparently obvious. Some people would say that X=X is more apparently obvious.

That is called major brain fog... Laugh

January 1, 2011
11:28 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I like taking ideas and running with them. I'm a thought stealer. Like an Illithid from D&D

[Image Can Not Be Found]

Laugh

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
11:40 am
Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9871
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

what's apparently obvious can sometimes be nothing but illusion
Magicians come to mind.

That pic reminds me of the 'beast/god' you (via morbid angel)go on about sometimes.

I think Kahn is really onto somethign with x only being equivalent to x

no two things can take up the same space
even if they seem to..they'd be in different dimensions

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

January 1, 2011
11:50 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm confused. I thought khan was suggesting that it is not self-evident that X=X. ๐Ÿ˜

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
12:24 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: I'm confused. I thought khan was suggesting that it is not self-evident that X=X. ๐Ÿ˜

X = X in a limited sense for abstract mathematical purposes.

But in the physical world there are two different things with another thing in between them.

IF you are looking for the isomorphism between abstract reality and physical reality then you need to search for a fractal mathematics and not see math as a game.

X is not equal to not-X

is a good start...

January 1, 2011
12:38 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Physical reality can be seen as a set.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
12:48 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Physical reality can be seen as a set.

๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_e ... _responses

Tegmark's response in [8] (sec VI.A.1) is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence".

January 1, 2011
12:52 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Great, a new hypothesis!

What is unclear is how he defines 'physical'.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 1, 2011
1:03 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 714
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Physical reality cannot be defined as a set if set theory itself contains undefined notions... ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

http://planetmath.org/encyclop.....heory.html

Axiomatic set theory
I will informally list the undefined notions, the axioms, and two of the ``schemes'' of set theory, along the lines of Bourbaki's account. The axioms are closer to the von Neumann-Bernays-Gรถdel model than to the equivalent ZFC model. (But some of the axioms are identical to some in ZFC; see the entry ZermeloFraenkelAxioms.) The intention here is just to give an idea of the level and scope of these fundamental things.

...There are three undefined notions:

1. the relation of equality of two sets

2. the relation of membership of one set in another (xy )

3. the notion of an ordered pair, which is a set comprised from two other sets, in a specific order.

January 1, 2011
1:14 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Level 0
Forum Posts: 9244
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nothing can really be defined.

What is a true definition?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 341
Currently Online: Alisah Wilson
Guest(s) 46
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10374
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25612
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9734
Posts: 126184
Newest Members:
Alisah Wilson, Tom, JaCol, FelicityG92, MillenniumFalcon, amee johnston, James, Angela Kiehn, Elam blue, SSSniperWolf
Administrators: John Greenewald: 689, blackvault: 1777