Author 
Message 
mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject:
A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



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.

tinmimus99@hotmail.com
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
"The math is easy," said Chaos.
< _Thief of Time_ 

Back to top 


Tim Weaver science forum beginner
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 9

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



mimus wrote:
Quote:  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.

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 


Immortalist science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 19 Jul 2005
Posts: 114

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



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.


Do you mean one finger "here or there" or one finger "here or there now
or then?" Is the finger from a moment ago the same finger if it lost a
million cells but gained two million new cells, in a very short time?
Besides that you answer presupposes that you can qualify real numbers
by using real numbers (objects represented by similar appearing
assemblages)
Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living
organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable,
constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium
adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Heraclitus thought that the contents of things change, but their form
remains the same. He wondered under what conditions do objects persist
through time as one and the same object. In ancient times, this problem
came to be associated with the Ship of Theseus;
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty
oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of
Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed,
putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this
ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical
question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained
the same, and the other contending that it was not the same. Plutarch
(c. 46 127).
The original puzzle is this: over the years, the Athenians replaced
each plank in the original ship of Theseus as it decayed, thereby
keeping it in good repair. Eventually, there was not a single plank
left of the original ship. So, did the Athenians still have one and the
same ship that used to belong to Theseus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
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 


dave hillstrom science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:36:13 0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:  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? 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.
Quote:  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. so, yes, they are imaginary in
two distinct ways.
Quote:  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.

Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"I can't find my puppy, can you help me find him? I think he went
into this cheap motel room."
Dave Hillstrom 

Back to top 


mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:20:03 0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
Quote:  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.
Quote:  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.
Quote:  so, yes, they are imaginary in
two distinct ways.

SO WHY ARE YOU ARGUING?
Nice point above, though.
Quote:  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 . . . .

tinmimus99@hotmail.com
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
You want a job and a lizard to ride?
< _The Einstein Intersection_ 

Back to top 


Smee science forum beginner
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 8

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



"mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.24.17.35.58.844796@hotmail.com...
Quote:  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.

All this is very interesting, I'm sure. However, you're all on notice that I
KNOW you're talking about math. Heavily disguised as "A Quantum
Philosophical Thesis", but math just the same.
So watch it!
Smee
Quote: 

tinmimus99@hotmail.com
smeeter 11 or maybe 12
mp 10
mhm 29x13
"The math is easy," said Chaos.
_Thief of Time_



Back to top 


dave hillstrom science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



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

Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"I can't find my puppy, can you help me find him? I think he went
into this cheap motel room."
Dave Hillstrom 

Back to top 


dave hillstrom science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:13:16 0700, "Smee" <pscissons@adelphia.net>
wrote:
Quote: 
"mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.24.17.35.58.844796@hotmail.com...
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.
All this is very interesting, I'm sure. However, you're all on notice that I
KNOW you're talking about math. Heavily disguised as "A Quantum
Philosophical Thesis", but math just the same.
So watch it!

he made me!! snot my fault!!!

Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"I can't find my puppy, can you help me find him? I think he went
into this cheap motel room."
Dave Hillstrom 

Back to top 


mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:50:01 0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
Quote:  On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:13:16 0700, "Smee" <pscissons@adelphia.net
wrote:
"mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.24.17.35.58.844796@hotmail.com...
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.
All this is very interesting, I'm sure. However, you're all on notice that I
KNOW you're talking about math. Heavily disguised as "A Quantum
Philosophical Thesis", but math just the same.
So watch it!
he made me!! snot my fault!!!

O *great*. Am I scapegoat again? When did that happen?

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 


mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:13:16 0700, Smee wrote:
Quote:  "mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.24.17.35.58.844796@hotmail.com...
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.
All this is very interesting, I'm sure. However, you're all on notice that I
KNOW you're talking about math. Heavily disguised as "A Quantum
Philosophical Thesis", but math just the same.
So watch it!
Smee

<loftily>
Only in my imagination.

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 


mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



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

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

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



mimus wrote:
Quote:  A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle
_There are no real numbers in nature._

Goodness me, if that is the baisis of quantum anythings, then quantum
everythings are just another time wasting mind fucking reason rejecting
Randaphobic, Kantian, Russellian, Platonian POC Primacy of
Consciousness rort.
Number is a concept. It is a quantity of units, and thats it. Concepts
dont exist in nature, they dont HAVE to, the entities which bring them
about, the basis or foundations of concepts DO exist.
The world is full of innumerable entities. Without the ability to
generalize  forced to approach the world as if every entity were
entirely unique and different  you would waste all of your time
grasping fundamentals over and over again. Life would be impossible.
A concept is a mental abstraction which allows generalization and the
extension of knowledge from some known objects to others unknown. It
integrates two or more particulars into a common mental unit. For
example, the concept "book" subsumes all particular books. It does so
based on the essential characteristics of multiple pieces of paper or
pages combined into a bound stack.
A concept is formed by taking a number of similar entities and deciding
what makes them similar in an important way. The differences and the
unessential similarities are not important and are abstracted away from
the newly created mental entity. Each concept serves a particular
purpose and is created to allow higherlevel thinking.
The concept wife assumes a marriage, the concept look assumes the
ability to perceive etc etc the concept drive assumes a machine.
People do not waste their time forming arbitrary concepts.
Other than people like the Quantum wankers of the POC Randaphobic
Kantian Platonian Russellian mystical moronic ilk that is, eh RyanT and
The Fool and Gandalf and Mimus and ...... goodgod there's far too many
to name, so dont feel too bad if I left your name out?
Michael Gordge 

Back to top 


dave hillstrom science forum beginner
Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:39:32 0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:  On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:50:01 0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:13:16 0700, "Smee" <pscissons@adelphia.net
wrote:
"mimus" <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.24.17.35.58.844796@hotmail.com...
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.
All this is very interesting, I'm sure. However, you're all on notice that I
KNOW you're talking about math. Heavily disguised as "A Quantum
Philosophical Thesis", but math just the same.
So watch it!
he made me!! snot my fault!!!
O *great*. Am I scapegoat again? When did that happen?

its been that way for a long time now. youve just been denying it.

Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"I can't find my puppy, can you help me find him? I think he went
into this cheap motel room."
Dave Hillstrom 

Back to top 


mimus science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 51

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:09:16 0700, mikegordge wrote:
Quote: 
mimus wrote:
A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle
_There are no real numbers in nature._
Goodness me, if that is the baisis of quantum anythings, then quantum
everythings are just another time wasting mind fucking reason rejecting
Randaphobic, Kantian, Russellian, Platonian POC Primacy of
Consciousness rort.
Number is a concept. It is a quantity of units, and thats it. Concepts
dont exist in nature, they dont HAVE to, the entities which bring them
about, the basis or foundations of concepts DO exist.
The world is full of innumerable entities. Without the ability to
generalize  forced to approach the world as if every entity were
entirely unique and different  you would waste all of your time
grasping fundamentals over and over again. Life would be impossible.
A concept is a mental abstraction which allows generalization and the
extension of knowledge from some known objects to others unknown. It
integrates two or more particulars into a common mental unit. For
example, the concept "book" subsumes all particular books. It does so
based on the essential characteristics of multiple pieces of paper or
pages combined into a bound stack.
A concept is formed by taking a number of similar entities and deciding
what makes them similar in an important way. The differences and the
unessential similarities are not important and are abstracted away from
the newly created mental entity. Each concept serves a particular
purpose and is created to allow higherlevel thinking.
The concept wife assumes a marriage, the concept look assumes the
ability to perceive etc etc the concept drive assumes a machine.
People do not waste their time forming arbitrary concepts.
Other than people like the Quantum wankers of the POC Randaphobic
Kantian Platonian Russellian mystical moronic ilk that is, eh RyanT and
The Fool and Gandalf and Mimus and ...... goodgod there's far too many
to name, so dont feel too bad if I left your name out?

Smile when you call me a Kantian or Platonian, stranger.

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 


Smee science forum beginner
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 8

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject:
Re: A Quantum Philosophical Thesis



<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1151183356.283452.323060@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 
mimus wrote:
A quantumized theory of nature should take as its first principle
_There are no real numbers in nature._
Goodness me, if that is the baisis of quantum anythings, then quantum
everythings are just another time wasting mind fucking reason rejecting
Randaphobic, Kantian, Russellian, Platonian POC Primacy of
Consciousness rort.
Number is a concept. It is a quantity of units, and thats it. Concepts
dont exist in nature, they dont HAVE to, the entities which bring them
about, the basis or foundations of concepts DO exist.
The world is full of innumerable entities. Without the ability to
generalize  forced to approach the world as if every entity were
entirely unique and different  you would waste all of your time
grasping fundamentals over and over again. Life would be impossible.
A concept is a mental abstraction which allows generalization and the
extension of knowledge from some known objects to others unknown. It
integrates two or more particulars into a common mental unit. For
example, the concept "book" subsumes all particular books. It does so
based on the essential characteristics of multiple pieces of paper or
pages combined into a bound stack.
A concept is formed by taking a number of similar entities and deciding
what makes them similar in an important way. The differences and the
unessential similarities are not important and are abstracted away from
the newly created mental entity. Each concept serves a particular
purpose and is created to allow higherlevel thinking.
The concept wife assumes a marriage, the concept look assumes the
ability to perceive etc etc the concept drive assumes a machine.
People do not waste their time forming arbitrary concepts.
Other than people like the Quantum wankers of the POC Randaphobic
Kantian Platonian Russellian mystical moronic ilk that is, eh RyanT and
The Fool and Gandalf and Mimus and ...... goodgod there's far too many
to name, so dont feel too bad if I left your name out?
Michael Gordge

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

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:12 am  All times are GMT

