# Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

```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.```
```
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