I agree that it would be silly to suggest that what has happened isn't what has happened. I would never suggest such an ridiculously absurd idea--nor have I. What I have suggested is that you can never express (with absolute accuracy) what has happened. For one thing, every record of history is always expressed by someone who is not omniscient. This is true, even when it is you who are "recording" history via personally witnessing the events. It is a well-known phenomena that witnesses of a crime are notoriously inaccurate in their accounts. Two witnesses will often give a significantly different description of a suspect. Describing different colored clothing, hair and so forth. Even an event as we are witnessing it is not an absolutely accurate account of the events. I you come home and your dog runs to you wagging his tail... you aren't seeing everything that is associated with this scene. You can't see, for instance, the bruise on the dog's shoulder from bumping into something earlier in the day. You can't read the dogs thoughts and know for certain the exact reason he's so excited to see you on this particular occasion: is he hungry, lonely, wanting a walk, or is he truly just happy to see you--for yourself. You can't see the muscles in his body, or be aware of how they are contracting to make him move in just the way he is--and to keep his heart beating. You can't be aware of the way tiny bits of his toenails get scraped off as he runs across the sidewalk. No matter how fully you think you are immersed in a given moment, you are only aware of it in a most superficial way--like a water bug sitting on the surface of a pond and totally unaware of the vast depths below the surface. This means that if the only truth that has meaning is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, as you've said, then we are never aware of any truth. Truth literally is a meaningless word, like a "square circle". This doesn't mean that the absolute "truth" doesn't exist. The dog's muscles are contracting. His blood is pumping. The atoms are moving around in his cells, and so forth. But we are never aware of any of this. All we can be aware of is our relative expression of an absolute truth. My expression of an absolute truth is true for me, because my expression is how I define the events of I am privy to. Another person who hears my expression can then compare my words to his experience of that same event (or to his logical deductions, if he wasn't there, etc) and he can compare what he knows of the event to my expression and determine if he feels the same sense of correspondence. Unless I'm intentionally lying, my expression is already true, for me. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have described it the way I did. But he saw the event from a different angle. And he brings to the observation ideas that may well be significantly different from mine. For instance, If I like my dog to jump up and lick my face when I get home, I may say, "My dog was well behaved today," even after he has licked my face--based on whatever criterion it is that I use to define my dog being "well behaved". My friend, who hates getting licked, will undoubtedly have a different opinion. So his truth is that my dog was not well behaved, since he defines it that way. The absolute truth is the same in both cases. My dog did what he did. The only thing that changed was how we interpreted that event. Without the absolute aspect there would be nothing to express. But without the relative aspect, we would not be able to talk meaningfully about the event. For even though there will always be points where we see things differently, most of the time our definitions of truth will overlap enough that we will understand each other. We both understand what a [dog] is. We both understand that [well behave] includes a certain range of behavior--and although we define it differently, my friend will understand what I mean. He understands that I am so glad to see my dog that I do not mind him jumping up and licking my face--and so to me, that is not part of [bad behavior by dogs]. Because he understand this, he will not misunderstand my meaning or call me a liar. And so our communication is (usually) seamless, despite our different opinions. This is only possible because we are not limited to an unchanging, inexpressible ABSOLUTE truth. Instead, we each have our relative truths, which we can mutually understand, without necessarily having to share.
Antone I am happy you understand all this but at the same time, it does not appear to lead to anything in particular and is quite unimpressive to myself. I have learned how to say the same things using many fewer words. I must ask you this question Antone seeing how you seem to be so taken by such elementary things -- what is your level of education in mathematics? Have you for example taken Calculus and Differential Equations? People taken by such things as you describe above are usually the ones that go on to discover things no one else ever has in mathematics. However, having learned a lot of higher mathematics - things I am impressed with it - are not likely things you could understand. I tend to stick to simple things on FC because people here don't know much math. However, when I read the things you say it appears to me you don't even know the formal names of the things in mathematics you describe/are not educated in mathematics - am I correct in this regard? On the other hand I like your attempts to associate extreme limits to everyday language and point out its limitations. Everyday language is ill-equipped to deal with phenomena taken to their extreme limitations. Another reason why I am interested in whether you know calculus.
This is an interesting and puzzling comment. First, I assume that what you are saying is elementary is (mostly) my comments on math. Why else would you be asking my math level? But most of what I've presented in this thread has very little to do with math. Oh, the concepts are related, of course, for example, we can find [limits] in non-mathematical scenarios. But that type of "limit" (although very vaguely related) isn't about math. I did present a VERY brief overview of a few of my basic math ideas--these were intended to counter BigCat's assertion that none of my ideas were "new" or in any significant way "original" ... Since then I haven't heard back from her... so I must assume that she couldn't counter my argument and didn't feel like admitting that she was wrong. So I'm not sure what, exactly, you're referring to when you suggest I'm "interested" in elementary things. Another reason this is puzzling is because you seem to suggest that you have a fairly comprehensive math education, and yet you don't seem to pick up on the ways that my "elementary" ideas are DIFFERENT from the traditional "elementary" ideas to which they generally "correspond". This makes me wonder if 1) you are not as educated as you pretend, 2) you are not as observant as an educated person should be, or 3) whether what I have learned and read is in error--and what I have assumed to be traditional ideas are not that at all. Not sure how interested you really are in this... (and I've already answered it to some extent in my previous replies to Big Cat) but I'll answer as if your interest is not feigned. In high school, I did not go very far in math. I moved to a big city school from a small farm school. And, unfortunately, I was stuck in a very slow and backwards math class--presumably because they figured (with my current math level, I must not be very good at math). This was probably somewhat deserved. Being a little dislexic it really didn't matter how much I studied, I could never seem to get above about a 92-95% correct--although I rarely got less than 88% or so. This was true whether I studied or not--and I never studied. My attitude was that if I couldn't get it done between classes, during home room, lunch, studyhall, while listening in other classes, before and after class, etc. Then homework didn't need to get done. I received mostly As and Bs in most of my classes, (probably about a 3.5 Average) being particularly adept in science classes (rarely, if ever, less than an A) . And particularly weak in English, history and foreign language classes. Anyway, part of the reason I did as poorly as I did in my math classes was because (in addition to not studying much) the classes were so strung out over time that I could never get a feel for the logic of what I was doing. As a freshman in college I took a mathematics course for one quarter that started out with material that was more basic than what I started with (as a freshman) in High School and ended up at a level that was more advanced than when I ended up taking as a senior. And because it came in a much more rapid fire manner, I was able to understand the topic much more easily. It was the easiest math class I've ever taken. I think I had a very brief overview of Trigonometry in that class, (Although I'm not sure) and probably reach the level of beginning to intermediary calculus. That is the sum total of my formal math training. I didn't look at math (or use it much) for about 10-15 years after that. Then I became interested in philosophy, and my reading brought me back to math. I read several layman's books on infinity and zero. And I've read books that go into a fair bit of depth on Godel's theorems etc. I've also read a little from text books on calculus and trigonomety... although I haven't studied diligently and systematically as one would in a formal class. My reading has been a bit haphazard. On some relatively basic math topics I'm still fairly uninformed, and on other (more advanced things) I have a fairly high level of understanding. Most of the math topics I've looked into, my goal has been to understand the principles and the logistics of the field, rather than to gain a proficiency with it. One of the areas that I'm most widely read is in the theory and Foundations of mathematics--or how numbers are supposedly created from "nothing". And this is what the majority of my writing on math deals with. I also have a fairly decent level of understanding when it comes to symbolic logic--although again, I have a much higher level of understanding when it comes to the principles than when it comes to my practical working skills. There are a number of people in my family who have some significant background in mathematics. And I have tried to engage them with my philosophical discussions. But they show very little interest. And (for that matter) very little knowledge of the non-practical math areas that typically appeal to me the most--despite their advanced degrees in mathematics. Given my current level of math skill, I suspect you may be right to some degree. One thing I have noticed is that the higher the level of education the person I'm talking to has, the less they seem to be capable of understanding (even the most basic) of the ideas I try to share with them. Part of this, I have come to suspect, is that they have learned ideas that are alien to common sense. People who haven't had their common sense reshaped by these "higher levels of learning" are able to look at my logic and say, "yeah, that makes a lot of sense." But those who think they already know more than I do look at what I say and all they see is how it violates what they know. It doesn't fit into their intellectual mold, and so they think I am either uninformed or confused, etc. This is a very frustrating problem, as most of the people who aren't educated in these areas aren't interested in listening to ideas in those areas--and even if they do, they aren't in a position to share those ideas with others. But those who are educated in these areas are predisposed to ignoring me, for a number of reasons. Some of which may even be valid, to an extent. On the one hand, there is probably some truth to this, which is why I have repeatedly tried to get someone who is well versed in mathematics to look at what I've developed on SET THEORY and the FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS. So that they can help make my ideas more palatable to those in the profession, proper. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that at least some of what you are trying to attribute to "math discussion" is not math discussion at all--but rather I am applying "math-like" terms to non-math-like situations. The LIMIT discussion is a good example. If what I say about the limit, doesn't fit the math definition perfectly, it's because it isn't really supposed to. For example, I have (within the frame-work of my theory) given what is probably a slightly novel definition to the terms LIMIT and LIMIT POINT. I suspect these definitions are very similar to traditional mathematics definitions--but there are subtle differences too, I believe. While I may not remember at this point (it's been 4-6 years or so since I wrote the math portion of my theory) I did know what the traditional definition of a LIMIT was when I wrote my theory. And so (at the time) I was aware of how it was different from my definitions. I'd have to look it up again to refresh my memory at this point. So, while there is undoubtedly some truth to your suggestions, I also think some of your suspicions are not entirely well founded. I agree and disagree, at the same time. Depending on what you mean by this, I think language is surprisingly well-equipped for dealing with phenomena taken to its extreme limitations. The problem is that language deals with this in a very non-rational, non-formalized way. For example, consider the following two statements: T1 ... This tree is dying. T2 ... A tree lives a long time The word [tree] in these statements refer to two very different things. One refers to a [specific tree]; and the other refers to [all trees] in general. These are logical opposite "things", much as the [positive numbers] are the opposite of the [negative numbers]. One is [singular & specific], the other is [plural & general]. But language gives us the means by which we can transition from one meaning to the other, simply by the context in which the word "tree" is used. Given the many different and reciprocal meanings that various words have, it is amazing that we misunderstand one another so rarely in everyday speech. And the reason we don't is because language is very well-equipped for dealing with these "limit" transitions, that invert our thinking from one meaning to its opposite meaning--just as moving through 0 on the number line transmutes our thinking from [negative] to [positive] numbers. The difference is that Mathematics is rational, (and thus more precisely defined--in rational terms) whereas language works its magic at a level that is closer to the subconscious--or irrational mind (and thus it is not very precise in rational terms). In addition, because each of us formulates our own rules, inside our own subconscious/irrational minds, we may very well formulate different rules for these linguistic transformations. Whereas mathematics is written down, so the rules can be shared and closely examined and proven, using complex mathematical rules and axioms. We are not using the same Irrational/commonsense part of our brain to think about math... instead, we are using the rational, learned part. Given this hidden, non-provable, nature of the language of language (as opposed to the easily expressed language of mathematics) I think it is quite amazing that we have such an extremely high level of mutual understanding when we converse--despite the wide range of possible interpretations that we all have for any given word. By contrast, mathematics tends to have a much higher level of rigidity in the definitions of its terms, but it is sort of ironic then that there are so many competing interpretations of various ideas. For example, there are numerous versions of set theory and prepositional logic. There is a fair bit of disagreement even in the basics of math... One theory for instance adopts an axiom or idea, etc. (such as the Continuum Hypothesis) while another rejects it. So while there is more precision in mathematics/logic/etc, (because of its precise/rational definitions) I would argue that their may be less actual agreement and internal consistency. And, I suspect this is also because these topics have been severed from the relative/irrational definitions of common sense, so to speak. My guess is that you won't really understand what I'm trying to say... but (as usual) I wrote this as much for my own benefit (to clarify my own ideas) as I did to share them with you.
6 Sep 20011 Antone Thank you for your info Antone. It was too much info. The answer to my question is NO you do not have an education in mathematics to speak of. You do think as so many other people on this forum that you can fart what you like as being some kind of thunder not knowing what other people with an education have said prior to you. You would not know if what you said was merely a subset of a much more vast concept taught to juniors in college. For example, you talk about set theory as though you are some sort of authority on the subject yet you use little if any of the common vocabulary of found in set theory as taught in universities on that subject and while logicians attempt to map logic to set theory you see fit to make it up as you go along not knowing you are not standing on the shoulders of giants like THEY are. It is counterproductive to simply insult someone. I also said that people such as yourself being are usually the people that discover things in mathematics that other people do not. This is because as you recognize - how well you understand more profound things is a function of how well you understand the basics. You attack everything knowing little but such an approach is exactly what is needed when going after what is 'in the box' of science and mathematics. A unique, revolutionist approach on academia. Your problem seems to be like so many other people on this forum - you refuse to learn what is taught in universities and see fit to throw rocks at what you know not. Its not good enough for you to simply spout what you know not knowing what is taught in universities. To lay any claim to fame you need trash explicitly what is taught there and you quite simply are not going to do that without an education in things like science, mathematics, logic and philosophy. You seem content to read something somewhere and go off on the deep end analyzing it - which is more than I can say about almost everyone on FC. However, you seem to fail to recognize that no matter how profoundly you trash what ever it is you are reading - the SOURCE itself doesn't seem to matter to you. For example. If you read a book Chariots of the Gods, you would go about trying to disprove it not knowing that most of what that book says is not accepted by the scientific community to begin with. Therefore any brilliant critical analysis by you of this book would hardly register a fart by people that are more educated. I want to make it clear that although it may seem as though I am picking on you - believe me - I sure as hell wish there were a lot more people on FC that even had your attention span/I find what you say to be very interesting although often comical about how you came about proclaiming the things that you do. And although most of what you say is true it is equally boring to a large extent. What you say does not seem to lead to anything in particular and I often find myself asking whether he knows about some concept in math/philosophy/science or logic since you seem to bring points out in these areas demonstrating you understand them as though you have discovered them on your own when in fact they are well known instances covered by very specific words/subjects taught at universities. Also, my education is in Electrical Engineering as I have said many times in the past and have had all of calculus and differential equations and learned on my own to one extent or another things like Fourier Analysis, Partial Differential Equations, Vector Analysis. In higher mathematics solutions to equations becomes an more of an ART than a science. Most differential equations cannot be solved exactly and can only be solved to some number of decimal points by a computer by computer algorithmic approximation techniques. A big stumbling block I have on FC is lack of education. I have to continually dumb down a lot of things I say so as to be understood at some crude level. Despite what you and other people here think to defend their lack of knowledge, there are many things I simply cannot talk about due to lack of education – as in I would have to teach several courses just for people to have a clue what I was talking about. In otherwords although it may sound like an ego thing to you and other people, there is no way for you to know why I think some things are important simply because you lack the necessary background to appreciate what I say. This is extremely frustrating to me and I am sure many other people. For example, we are not going to discussing even elementary Big Bang equations. I have posted no less than 3 times in excruciating detail where E = mc^2 comes from deriving it from simpler principles using elementary calculus and I still see idiot brain responses to this day on FC Space and Time. If I want to talk about the implications of a new drug and how it affects neurons in the brain, one must know elementary principles of electricity as in neurons fire chemically producing electrical impulses causing chemical reactions in the brain. Metabolic pathways in the brain. Not going to be a FC thing. I have to stick to simple things. If you look on the web you will find tons of people posting their dissertations and thesis for doctoral and masters degrees as a reality check before they submit them. Why wouldn’t I rather read these than an Antone homespun high school education?
No I don't have an extensive FORMAL education in set theory. I've taken a few college classes, but the vast majority of my learning on this topic (like all the others) comes from my own reading--which IS fairly extensive. Much more so than what I've read about in mathematics. So by comparison to mathematics, I believe I am fairly well versed in set theory. I'm not qualified to teach a college level course, but I suspect neither are you. And most of the time, I try to acknowledge this. Although most of my definitions are a little different from traditional ideas, so it gets ridiculously redundant after a while. (As does reexplaining this to people who can seem to understand what I've said about it the first few times.) Yes there is something to be said for knowing what those who went before thought about a subject. But since my theory is radically different from them, it is not surprising that I would not only have to use new terms but also old terms in new ways. And yet despite you're acknowledgement of this "fact" you also talk out of the other side of your mouth and claim I say nothing new.
Sleepwalking Tons of people trash each other with a picture or word or a backpack of fertilizer. "If I have seen more than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Newton was reported to of said if so then who where the giants he referred too? Euclid, Pythagoras, Zeno, Plato, Aristotle per happenstance chant the chance? First principles ought obey the "LAW OF CORRECT DEMONSTRATION" goggle that. Very little has been written about it for a very long time so it seems to pitfall ME. Just an independent student making an attempt to comprehend analysis of equations. Those TIMES devious crossword puzzles with cryptic clues to find a single word. Letters and numbers the rat pack selection of ones less than ten to add up to 666. That beastly enterprise where everybody worships at the alter of mammon: commerce. Banking institutions who regularly cook the books to please their shareholders. Equations that are forced to balance in the everyday enterprise universities teach. OH YEAH you know a lot old son as the sun cooks you there in that deserted furnace. Sleepwalking after your first dose of Zolpidem since you can't sleep because of tension. peat
I disagree with your assessment that I refuse to "learn" what is taught in college... So, let me clarify the typical process I use to develop an idea: First, I typically read a layman's book on a particular topic and I see something that sparks my interest or generates a new idea which seems to be novel and contradictory to the claims of the author. Then, I begin to develop ideas a little more in depth. If the idea seems to be internally consistent and have merit, I try to find more detailed and technical sources to read on the topic. 1) to see if the first author's claims were accurate, 2) to see if I can find anyone whose POV matches my own. #) to main more ideas and insight, and a working knowledge of the jargon being used on the topic. I have limited time and I'm a slow reader, so I have to chose what I read carefully, but on many of the topics I discuss, I suspect that I am at least as well informed as you are. This probably includes the aspects of math that I talk about. Obviously, if your level of math understanding is anywhere close to what you suggest, then I am not as informed as you are on many aspects of math. But I don't need to be, because my theory doesn't touch all that deeply on those math fields. It deals almost exclusively with the philosophical side of math and the foundations of numbers. And from my experience, those who know a lot about practical math applications tend to know very little if anything about this area of math. As previously stated, I seem to know much more about it than those in my family with degrees in more practical math areas. So for all I know, I may have a stronger background in this area than you do. I suspect that you may have made one valid point. I don't have a teacher picking what I read, so what I chose may be older, or the ideas of a specific person, rather than what is widely accepted. Or in some other way it may be less effectively targeted than a typical college students reading. But I've been reading at a slow and steady pace for about 15-20 years now, so I think I have a fairly decent background on most of the topics I discuss. As for NOT standing on the shoulder of giants... there is also SOME merit in this observation. But I would argue that much of this is the necessary result of discussing things that are so fundamentally contrary to what is traditionally held in the fields that, for instance, in philosophy you have to go back to Plato and Aristotle to find where modern theories took what I consider to be a wrong turn. These modern theorists make conclusions about their work, and all future discussions that I've seen are based on these conclusion--which I reject. How then am I to base my discussion on their principles, when they are not compatible with mine? When ones ideas diverge from the GIANTS at such a fundamental and basic level--then it is very difficult to base your discussion on the principles of those giants. For example, suppose you came up with a theory that suggested that 1+1≠2. You develop a formal math system based on this basic idea. How then would it be possible to stand on the shoulders of those who developed the traditional algebra and calculus--which are not based on 1+1≠2. I suggest that it is NOT POSSIBLE. And criticism that is based on the truth that this new system doesn't base itself on the old is absurd. My ideas often verge from traditional ones at a level that is no less basic, in their own way. Part of the beauty of my theory (and the difficulty as you've demonstrated) is that with my theory that divergence doesn't significantly affect the way that we deal with the practical applications. For instance, I define an [empty set] quite differently from the way it traditionally is, but this new definitions doesn't significantly change the way we talk about or deal with the [empty set] in the more basic applications of set theory. Similarly, the way I define the ordinal numbers and the cardinal numbers is a bit different from traditional foundations of math thinking. But in all basic and practical applications, simple arithmetic works exactly the same way under my system as it always has. I suspect the same is true in almost (if not all) practical applications of algebra and calculus. Some have used this fact to argue that there isn't any reason for preferring my theory... since it doesn't create any differences. But I believe this is wrong thinking for two reasons: 1) I believe that understanding the intuitive mechanisms by which math works is important for its own philosophical sake, and 2) while the more basic applications remain unchanged, there does come a point where the differences become quite significant--and radically affect how we view more complex and advanced math topics. At this point, the differences that previously lurked (mostly hidden) below the surface become very apparent and significant. A good example of this is the Continuum Hypothesis. This is based on Cantor's ideas about the nature of an infinite set. But, I believe that my theory lays the groundwork for undermining Cantor's ideas on this topic--and therefore it also undermines the Continuum Hypothesis, which is essentially based on those ideas. Trying to discuss the Continuum Hypothesis (within the framework of my theory) would be a bit like asking if the physical aspect of a [square circle] is [square] or [round]. Since there is no physical [square circle], the very question makes no sense. The Continuum Hypothesis literally has no meaning within my theory. Similarly, in set theory, my interpretation of the empty set (and other definitions) lead me to the opposite conclusion about the size of a power set. Instead of a power set being larger... it is exactly the same size as the set it is based on. The only difference is that the sets have different "units of measure" or they are defined by what I call different Shadow Sets. Traditional set theory doesn't even use the term Shadow Set. It is a completely new and somewhat novel idea to set theory.
I would suggest that if you can't discuss the validity of the Big Bang in such a way that others can understand you and engage in meaningful debate about the BB... then there is either something wrong with the Big Bang or there is something wrong with your equations. That's my opinion. No one needs to understand the equations to have an informed opinion about the Big Bang. And understanding those equations DOES NOT give you a greater claim to knowing whether the Big Bang actually occurred or not. The only thing your fancy Big Bang equations prove is that humans are capable of creating equations that are perhaps (in mathematical terms) quite elegant. Beyond that, I'll side with what is (as near as I can tell) Truth in Art's opinion of the matter.
It seems to be a trend that most mathematicians and physicists tend to do their best and most creative work when they are still fairly young. (Perhaps I'm wrong--but if not) I have a theory as to why this might be the case. As a scientists becomes more heavily steeped in the dogma of their own field, they become less and less receptive to new and novel ideas. They become increasingly convinced that they already know the answers--and so they have less and less motivation to look for new ones. In other words, how capable you are of thinking up new and insightful ideas depends (at least in part) on how free you are of the basic dogma of the field you are delving into. I suspect this is something like what you had in mind when you talked about thinking outside the box. But I believe my strategy of tending to reading up on those areas where I already have ideas allows me to stay fresh and creative--without becoming indoctrinated by the dogma of traditional views. Clearly, if you are to convince those with traditional views, you must have some understanding of their POV. While obvious, this is one of your better points. But aside from the reasons mentioned above, I often find it is better to ignore certain areas of inquiry. For example, when the traditional ideas are so far in contrast as to be completely and utterly incompatible with my own, it seems to me that there is little if anything to be gained by reading them. There have been a few times when this has been the case. The traditional comments are so alien to my own thinking on the subject that there aren't any meaningful points of comparison. On these occasions, I usually don't spend the time necessary to learn the traditional view. (Did I mention I'm a slow reader?) Which means that any ideas I develop in these few areas are almost entirely my own. There is very little chance, however, that these occasions will lead to me duplicating previous ideas--because, like I said, the views I choose not to read are so entirely alien to what I am developing that there really isn't much of anything useful I can glean from the traditional material. The example of the Continuum Hypothesis is a good example. Why spend hours reading (and learning) the boring, difficult technical equations (and the logic behind them) when the Continuum Hypothesis is totally and utterly outside of the perspective of my theory. On the other hand, reading up on the Correspondence theory, the Coherence theory, the identity theory, the deflationary theory, and so forth is useful... The traditional definitions for each of these theories makes them slightly different from my own theory. But in each case, a very minor tweak in the definition makes my theory completely compatible. Using these ever so slightly modified definitions, my theory is a correspondence theory, it is a coherence theory, it is a deflationary theory, etc. And because the ideas in these theories are so closely related to the ones in my own, reading about them has many advantages. 1) it provides terms that I can use, (sometimes slightly modified). 2) the advantages and disadvantages of a particular theory is usually discussed, and I can make sure that my theory avoids all of the potential pitfalls. 3) it sparks new and novel ideas, and ways of thinking about old ideas. Thus, as I have said on many other occasions, on most of the topics that I write about, I would say that I am reasonably well educated--although not formally.
BTW, the following link is a rather interesting video about the value of attending college. It's premise is rather radical, but I think interesting. While rather long (over an hour) I think it is well worth watching for a new and different perspective on attending college. This has more to do with the economic feasibility of college than the value of what you learn... but still, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE&feature=pyv&ad=6739540474&kw=sarah%20palin
An outsiders POV Daphne is a friend of mine who lives near the wreck that is in the picture. I posted a link to this thread and the above is her reply to the discussion. Debate Closed Down is the result of a chat conversation I started with her. Cause and effect the pills that taste sweet yet are bitter to the stomach. Constantly we are forced to deal with that which attracts or that which repulses. Societal conventions and members of the in crowd and members of the out crowd. More often than not denoted by the connotations of their influences monetarily. My car is faster or my car is tougher and replace car with house or child etc. That is set theory in a nutshell at least from the viewpoint of present day society. Words as ii doctor has said repeatedly are identifiers and as such abstract in nature. Remain unknown by present generation's study of origins etymologically speaking. For histrionically speaking the meaning changes via usage of them in new contexts. Metaphysics to me is a synonym for spiritual and physics is easily replaced by material. Epistemologically speaking that is for me at least: set theory means a Venn diagram. peat
Antone: And yet despite you're acknowledgement of this "fact" you also talk out of the other side of your mouth and claim I say nothing new. MD: Depite the fact you ignored what I said, you don't say anything new. You see what you want to see with no education on the subjects you pretend to be in authority of. In fact the very reason I responed to your thread is presisely for that reason. Because what you say is not only not new but boring as well. There are formal definitions for the things you think you invented knowing no better for lack of education. Again the only thing I think you have going for you is your unique unbiased view outside acadamia. Even so without being able to draw any sort of point from the things you rattle about, I remain unimpressed.
Well said by someone to lazy or too stupid to learn these equations. Your response could be used by by everyone that has an external excretement orifice. LOL!!!! It seems you can be trashed in any number of ways. As in you basically don't know much of anything about anything - weeelllllllll welcome to FC!!! You are in good company. I get tired of of hearing the junk people like yourself spew. I spent many years learning this stuff and from my perspective you can kiss my ass if you don't like being trashed. I am looking for people that are not afraid of taking on acadamia. If you do not know what is "inside the box" you sound like a silly child attempting to talk about ideas you believe to be outside the box. If you do not know what is inside the box (science and mathematics) all you are is a clown attempting to talk about what is outside the box - you simply don't know what is outside the box. I don't care about your silly ass uneducated beliefs. You have to demonstrate to me a superior understanding to acadamia not some cartoon level fart you spun up out of thin air like all the other buffoons. You and other people may think this is harsh and not constructive to further investigation by people such as yourself toward what is reality/true. But that is life in the big city. Specifically - I DO want to shut down the belief that you can come on the internet and fart anything you like and attempt to associate it with reality unless and until you can demonstrate what you say is superior to what currently exists. Not knowing what currently exists as knowledge in universities you have no right to fart otherwise and expect to be taken seriously. The fact of the matter is you do not even know what ideas you think are your own and those that were known 400 years before Christ. You think you invented them. You are pretty funny from my point of view.
Antone, I am a slow reader as well and a VERY CAREFUL reader as well. Although I do not have a photographic memory I ALMOST DO. And why would I tell you this? Because unlike you, I can back up everything I say with very specific references from university professors or their equivalents. In fact I can remember very clearly my first discussions with you on FC. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you on this endlessly Antone. Unless and until you DO come up with something 1. I do not know already and 2. there is some sort of POINT to what you have to say, - basically I am out of here. There are lots of other people on FC that might be impressed with your confusion but I am not one of them. You are in good company here on FC.
Two things both amaze, amuse and use me. The starry skies above objective we see. A moral law within. subjective dear me.
From a much earlier FC Post by ME: "Kant goes further with this with his ‘Categories of the Understanding’ – which – like time and space apply to/categorize all experiences we have whatsoever. Kant made several mistakes but he was ahead of his time and understood the nature of a problem ‘humanity’ would have and came to a head with QFT. His gravestone says ‘The starry sky above us. The moral law within us.’ Few know what this means. It sounds nice but it was Kant’s code for telling generations thousands of years into the future he knew the problem (as did Socrates/Plato). The starry sky is the particle nature/objective reality. The moral law is the subjective nature/wave nature. Kant is saying these are 2 distinct things and will forever haunt mankind with ambiguity. Objectifying the subjective is the problem. Thus, this is the connection between metaphysics and QFT. From QFT the following must be true: Experimenter cannot be separated from experimented upon. Observer cannot be separated from observed. Meaning cannot be separated from language. Content (data) cannot be separated from context (how we couch that data in language) If we go looking for tuba waves in traffic noise, we will find components of tuba waves in traffic noise (Nick Herbert Quantum Reality). What do tuba waves have to do with traffic noise? Not a damn thing. We see what we expect to see. In another Universe they seek piano waves in traffic noise…. That is their reality."
