FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
A Quantum Philosophical Thesis
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 6 [78 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz
science forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:09 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

Smee wrote:
Quote:

You are hereby fined 27 and one half points for obfuscation.

And you reckon saying *numbers dont exist in nature* isn't coming from
an obfuscated and seriously fucked up reason dead brain?




Michael Gordge
Back to top
Tim Weaver
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

mimus wrote:

Quote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:47:10 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:27:35 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:20:03 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:36:13 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com
wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number
of significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

yes, but not because of your argument. nature is all ~about~ real
numbers. since when do you see plant or animal growth or size ever
follow a nice WHOLE number strategy?

All of 'em, of course. Using very many very small integers.

and how do you add those? where is the delimiter of not being part of
the organism and being part of the organism? there is a time period
in between those states in virtually any definition of states youd
care to make. integers dont very well serve the purpose of
representation in that case, electron microscope boi.

and of COURSE real numbers are, in effect, imaginary, as imaginary
numbers have real numbers as a subset.

i think you are putting the cart before the horse in your argument.
our desire for rational explanations can only lead to approximation.
all approximations have finite boundaries in which they are useful.
our approximations cannot specify everything happening in a natural
phenomena. but they CAN allow us to ~sort~ of grasp what is going
on, and what ~sort~ of might go on given certain conditions. in a
STATISTICAL way, but very rarely in a definite "this one is going to
do this, im sure of it" way.

when you get down to it, real numbers only exist in our head. they
are a tool we use to describe that which we see.

without real numbers, there is a problem recording analog events.
without analog events, there IS no nature. you cannot grow a
discrete time digital tomato plant in the real world, with only a
finite number of states. and planets and stars do not come in
convenient, whole number sizes. although for our sanities sake, we
try awful hard to force them, and everything else, into just that.

for us, with our measly brain power, real numbers are the obvious
tool to use to represent that which we experience.

i could be wrong, though. i could be missing your real argument in
some space fold.

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits
without starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some
procedure or function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or
cardinal digits involving time and (therefore) one involving or
equivalent to one involving the imaginary _i_?

real numbers only exist in our head, mimus. and they are also a
subset of the imaginary number set.

Ooh, yes, that's a nice point, you can add the SOBs together.

so, yes, they are imaginary in two distinct ways.

SO WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?

Nice point above, though.

And time is of course equivalent to space.

in YOUR head, perhaps. unless you are talking about walking to the
corner convenience store versus the grocery store 2 miles away.
then, assuming velocity is constant, id agree.

Or two times mimus' Number of spations . . . .

youre just trying to cause trouble. i can tell. beast.

runs off crying

It's a fair cop.

Take the square root of a negative number and damn the i. Problem solved.
--
Tim Weaver

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I an not so sure what you heard is not what I meant.
Back to top
moriman
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:16 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

"Tim Weaver" <tmw99999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97EC8D851351B0Z0thecheeseclub0Z0@news.giganews.com...
Quote:
mimus wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number of
significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits
without
starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some procedure or
function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or cardinal digits
involving time and (therefore) one involving or equivalent to one
involving the imaginary _i_?

And time is of course equivalent to space.

Hold up one finger. Add one. Rinse. Repeat.

Should there not be a 'Spit' between 'Rinse' and 'Repeat'

mori


Quote:
--
Tim Weaver

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I an not so sure what you heard is not what I meant.
Back to top
Tim Weaver
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

moriman wrote:

Quote:

"Tim Weaver" <tmw99999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97EC8D851351B0Z0thecheeseclub0Z0@news.giganews.com...
mimus wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number
of
significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits
without starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some
procedure or function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or
cardinal digits involving time and (therefore) one involving or
equivalent to one involving the imaginary _i_?

And time is of course equivalent to space.

Hold up one finger. Add one. Rinse. Repeat.

Should there not be a 'Spit' between 'Rinse' and 'Repeat'

Lick.
--
Tim Weaver

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I an not so sure what you heard is not what I meant.
Back to top
mimus
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:15:09 -0500, Tim Weaver wrote:

Quote:
mimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:47:10 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:27:35 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:20:03 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:36:13 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com
wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number
of significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

yes, but not because of your argument. nature is all ~about~ real
numbers. since when do you see plant or animal growth or size ever
follow a nice WHOLE number strategy?

All of 'em, of course. Using very many very small integers.

and how do you add those? where is the delimiter of not being part of
the organism and being part of the organism? there is a time period
in between those states in virtually any definition of states youd
care to make. integers dont very well serve the purpose of
representation in that case, electron microscope boi.

and of COURSE real numbers are, in effect, imaginary, as imaginary
numbers have real numbers as a subset.

i think you are putting the cart before the horse in your argument.
our desire for rational explanations can only lead to approximation.
all approximations have finite boundaries in which they are useful.
our approximations cannot specify everything happening in a natural
phenomena. but they CAN allow us to ~sort~ of grasp what is going
on, and what ~sort~ of might go on given certain conditions. in a
STATISTICAL way, but very rarely in a definite "this one is going to
do this, im sure of it" way.

when you get down to it, real numbers only exist in our head. they
are a tool we use to describe that which we see.

without real numbers, there is a problem recording analog events.
without analog events, there IS no nature. you cannot grow a
discrete time digital tomato plant in the real world, with only a
finite number of states. and planets and stars do not come in
convenient, whole number sizes. although for our sanities sake, we
try awful hard to force them, and everything else, into just that.

for us, with our measly brain power, real numbers are the obvious
tool to use to represent that which we experience.

i could be wrong, though. i could be missing your real argument in
some space fold.

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits
without starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some
procedure or function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or
cardinal digits involving time and (therefore) one involving or
equivalent to one involving the imaginary _i_?

real numbers only exist in our head, mimus. and they are also a
subset of the imaginary number set.

Ooh, yes, that's a nice point, you can add the SOBs together.

so, yes, they are imaginary in two distinct ways.

SO WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?

Nice point above, though.

And time is of course equivalent to space.

in YOUR head, perhaps. unless you are talking about walking to the
corner convenience store versus the grocery store 2 miles away.
then, assuming velocity is constant, id agree.

Or two times mimus' Number of spations . . . .

youre just trying to cause trouble. i can tell. beast.

runs off crying

It's a fair cop.

Take the square root of a negative number and damn the i. Problem solved.

Well. As Maxwell first demonstrated, you can use _i_ freely, as long as
it doesn't show up in yer result . . . .

George Spencer Brown claims, and has a patent or two to prove it, that you
can do the same thing with logic. But everyone's doing their best to
ignore him. (Although British Rail or wotever they're called use the
patents.)

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You have," the machine informed him, "a classic case
of feem desire, complicated by strong dwarkish
intentions."

"I do? I thought I was homicidal."

< _Pilgrimage to Earth_
Back to top
mimus
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:09:26 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Quote:
Smee wrote:

You are hereby fined 27 and one half points for obfuscation.

And you reckon saying *numbers dont exist in nature* isn't coming from
an obfuscated and seriously fucked up reason dead brain?

Try reading the OP again. No one said anything about numbers not existing
in nature . . . .

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You have," the machine informed him, "a classic case
of feem desire, complicated by strong dwarkish
intentions."

"I do? I thought I was homicidal."

< _Pilgrimage to Earth_
Back to top
mimus
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:16:36 +0100, moriman wrote:

Quote:

"Tim Weaver" <tmw99999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97EC8D851351B0Z0thecheeseclub0Z0@news.giganews.com...
mimus wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number of
significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits
without
starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some procedure or
function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or cardinal digits
involving time and (therefore) one involving or equivalent to one
involving the imaginary _i_?

And time is of course equivalent to space.

Hold up one finger. Add one. Rinse. Repeat.

Should there not be a 'Spit' between 'Rinse' and 'Repeat'

mori

I'd spit _before_ the rinse.

But that's just me, I guess.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Thank you for your patience, all our customer
representatives are busy posting to usenet.
Please hang up and kill yourself.

< Blitz the Cat
Back to top
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz
science forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:54 pm    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

mimus wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:09:26 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Smee wrote:

You are hereby fined 27 and one half points for obfuscation.

And you reckon saying *numbers dont exist in nature* isn't coming from
an obfuscated and seriously fucked up reason dead brain?

Try reading the OP again. No one said anything about numbers not existing
in nature . . . .


_There are no real numbers in nature._

Number is a concept, a quantity of units, a concept is a mental
abstraction it Integrates two or more particulars into a common mental
unit.

No units, nothing to measure no numbers are required.

BTW time is a measurement of motion, no motion no time.


Michael Gordge
Back to top
mimus
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:01 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:54:04 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Quote:

mimus wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:09:26 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Smee wrote:

You are hereby fined 27 and one half points for obfuscation.

And you reckon saying *numbers dont exist in nature* isn't coming from
an obfuscated and seriously fucked up reason dead brain?

Try reading the OP again. No one said anything about numbers not existing
in nature . . . .


_There are no real numbers in nature._

Number is a concept, a quantity of units, a concept is a mental
abstraction it Integrates two or more particulars into a common mental
unit.

No units, nothing to measure no numbers are required.

BTW time is a measurement of motion, no motion no time.

Aha.

Please note the (ordinary) mathematical distinction between "real" numbers
on the one hand and the ordinal and cardinal numbers-- the integers--
on the other, made in the OP.

Thank you.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Thank you for your patience, all our customer
representatives are busy posting to usenet.
Please hang up and kill yourself.

< Blitz the Cat
Back to top
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz
science forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:46 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

mimus wrote:
Quote:

Please note the (ordinary) mathematical distinction between "real" numbers
on the one hand and the ordinal and cardinal numbers-- the integers--
on the other, made in the OP.

When I was about six, my grand poppa used to say, *If he cant explain
to you, so as you can understand, what he says is true then it aint
true.*

So pretend I am six and explain the distinctions between real numbers
and numbers that aren't real.

Thankyou


Michael Gordge
Back to top
mimus
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:11 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:46:50 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Quote:

mimus wrote:

Please note the (ordinary) mathematical distinction between "real" numbers
on the one hand and the ordinal and cardinal numbers-- the integers--
on the other, made in the OP.

When I was about six, my grand poppa used to say, *If he cant explain
to you, so as you can understand, what he says is true then it aint
true.*

So pretend I am six and explain the distinctions between real numbers
and numbers that aren't real.

Thankyou

Nobody six would ask.

The most intriguing characteristic of real numbers in the mathematical
sense is that each successive real must have an infinite number of
significant figures (otherwise you could place a real of one more
significant figure-- make it a five-- between any two other reals), making
their existence dubious in the first place, and meaning also that existing
or not we can only ever approximate them anyway.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Quando omni flunkus moritati.

(When all else fails, play dead.)

< Possum Lodge motto
Back to top
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz
science forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:30 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

mimus wrote:
Quote:

Nobody six would ask.

Which automatically causes eyebrows to rise.

Quote:
The most intriguing characteristic of real numbers in the mathematical
sense is that each successive real must have an infinite number of
significant figures (otherwise you could place a real of one more
significant figure-- make it a five-- between any two other reals), making
their existence dubious in the first place, and meaning also that existing
or not we can only ever approximate them anyway.

Was that your case?

A number is a concept, a quantity of units. A concept is a mental
abstraction, which purpose is to integrate two or more particulars into
a common mental unit.

A number is to calculation, what pages are to a book, they have a
purpose.

There is a correct order for the numbers to be used in a calculation in
the same manner as there is a correct order for pages to be placed into
a book, there are no *unreal pages of a book* there are no unreal
numbers in a calculation.

You are giving number a meaning it does not have in sensory reality,
therefore IS a meaning from a figment of imagination and therefore of
NO USE at all to the rational mind.


Michael Gordge
Back to top
Wordsmith
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:56 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

Tim Weaver wrote:
Quote:
mimus wrote:

A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle

_There are no real numbers in nature._

It should be remembered that every real number has an infinite number of
significant figures.

Putting it another way,

_Real numbers are imaginary._

And, indeed, how could you generate an infinite sequence of digits without
starting with a "real" number, dividing by zero or some procedure or
function for generating an infinite number of ordinal or cardinal digits
involving time and (therefore) one involving or equivalent to one
involving the imaginary _i_?

And time is of course equivalent to space.

Hold up one finger. Add one. Rinse. Repeat.

Does that mean only *apparent* numbers are real?

W : )

Quote:
Tim Weaver

I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I an not so sure what you heard is not what I meant.
Back to top
Smee
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:16 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1151193244.578357.97070@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

mimus wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:09:26 -0700, mikegordge wrote:

Smee wrote:

You are hereby fined 27 and one half points for obfuscation.

And you reckon saying *numbers dont exist in nature* isn't coming from
an obfuscated and seriously fucked up reason dead brain?

Try reading the OP again. No one said anything about numbers not
existing
in nature . . . .


_There are no real numbers in nature._

Number is a concept, a quantity of units, a concept is a mental
abstraction it Integrates two or more particulars into a common mental
unit.

No units, nothing to measure no numbers are required.

BTW time is a measurement of motion, no motion no time.

Does your brane ever hurt?

Smee

Quote:


Michael Gordge
Back to top
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz
science forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:12 am    Post subject: Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis Reply with quote

Smee wrote:

Quote:
Does your brane ever hurt?


Does your arse hurt pulling your head out of ?


Michael Gordge
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 6 [78 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:15 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Signal Nonlocality Loophole in Quantum Theory? Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:59 am
No new posts Jungian Archetypes in Post-Quantum Psychotronics Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:40 am
No new posts A Look at Quantum "Spookiness" Egap Strings 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:52 am
No new posts thesis about singapore math Claudia Math 0 Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:54 pm
No new posts thesis about singapore math Claudia Math 2 Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:15 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0340s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0038s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]