Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but I am of a like-mind to him. What I have discerned, is an important insight that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you point out, make things mightily more complicated.

## Advertising

There is level of complication that has been with us all the time, but which we have smoothly or inadvertantly 'chosen' to ignore; because it is too intimate within standard functions and operations to be immediately noticed. EVERY integration, or differentiation; or multiplication or division of a non-scalar factor ... changes the dimensionality of a relational equation. This, by default, changes the rank of the corresponding Cantorian matrices. No statistical evaluation stands alone as if borne full grown. It exits -within- a mathematical landscape of adjacent and extended functionFORMS that are the rest of the pre-integrations, pre-differentiations, pre-multiplicands, pre-dividands ... that "surround" it in 'mathematical space'. And it, in and of itself, represents a part of the 'mathematical environment' for any and all of those .. 'others'. The beautiful simplicity is that -every- change of dimensional specification, CONVERTS mathematical statements, IN COMPARISON TO THOSE MATH-ENVIRONMENT COMPANIONS. If, for example, a base function was qualia deterministic, the conversion reveals the function product to be qualia statistical. And even more 'confusing', as it were, is the concept that we can take a base datum group, assign it an 'identity', change the dimensionality as described above, and end up, not with an 'alternative function/identity', but with the Base Datum Identity -- SEEN as if looking at it through alternate lenses and windows. IT 'stays' the same; we 'appreciate' -- different relational aspects that are there all the time but unrecognized because the mathematic-statements are out lenses of focus. Choose a different mathematical lens (like choosing a different wavelength of energy) and you 'see' something different. Intrinsic to all observables -and- mathematic-forms, are BOTH deterministic -and- statistical relations. They CONVERT. They CONSERVE. Even through the change of qualia. They REVEAL ... different relations when seem through options math-viewers. Quite fascinating. :-) Jamie April 3, 2007 > Jamie, > wise words, but no cigar here. For a "RE-Evaluation" I have > insufficient knowledge even in the "E" - to compare it into a "RE-". > Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being > just a 'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical > fraction of the totality within boundaries of our capabilities to > observe) because so far nobody (incl our computers) had the mental > power to exercise statistics upon the infinite totality - which > would be trivial anyway. Stathis is wise to concentrate on THIS > (our?) universe in his Stathistical considerations, as he mentioned. > If we include the multiverse (any definition) into statistics it would > produce inadvertently infinites compared to infinites and it would > require a Georg Cantor to find out how to compare all those infinites. > The sophisticated 'statistical' and 'probabilistic' math is fine, it > is a good mental game, but all is originated in limited patterns for > the comparison. > > > Change the boundaries of your model (selection) and both the > statistical figures and the (arbitrary? so called:) probabilities > will change.(Useful though they are in building our technology). > You need a vacation from the mathematical brainwashing to agree. > I feel, you have it. > > John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---