I consider your post rather insightful at first glance and worthy for further study. Therefore, a delay may occur between now and a substantive reply.

## Advertising

On Mar 23, 8:46 pm, James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Tenneson wrote: > > > Thanks for your reply. I have a lot to say, so let me try to rate my > > breath, as it were. > > > 1. It is nice to hear a human say this is uncharted territory. > > . > > . > > I think my main improvement, while not really coming close to really > > answering my question, was changing the goal from prove Russell's > > Theorem is not always true to asking the question "Is Russell's > > Theorem true in all logics?" A bonus seems that now there is a > > theoretical physics, by way of the MUH, motivation for answering this > > question. > > This is an important task. As I mentioned, the direction of > concepts-progress is: 'towards maximum generalization' -- even > absolute generalization, if you will. An encompassing single > notion, or limited group of notions, that imply 'all else'. > Simplest principle(s). Matching the sensibility connected > with a 'theory of everything'. Simplest qualia. > > > 3. On that note, Physics/Philosophy actually what inspired me to go in > > this direction. I was mainly, back then when this idea of trying to > > find a consistent universal set theory occurred to me, trying to > > answer a intended-to-be serious argument against the existence of the > > universe. > > > I was stunned at the notion that someone was trying to prove the > > universe does not exist. I think they were asserting some form of > > solipsism. > > > In a nutshell, here was their argument. My opinion is that it is not > > at all formal but very clever and probably persuasive but, ultimately, > > like the many clever "proofs" that 1=2 and such. It's just going to > > be convincing to those who aren't vigorously attacking the argument, > > which I soon did. > > > <begin their argument for the non-existence for the universe> > > Definition: To contain means <insert something most people would > > accept here>. The notation and word for 'is contained in' is > > is<in. > > > Thing and exists are undefined or ... acceptably defined only be > > common intuitive sense of what a thing is, but neither formally (in > > her argument) > > > Definition: the universe (call it U) is a thing that has the property > > that it contains all things, notated by (x) (x is<in U), where x is a > > thing. > > This in itself is a problematic conjecture (presumption). So fundamental > in fact that no past or current analysis has enunciated the criteria-error. > (The reason for this is illuminated by Benj Whorf's linguistics analysis > circa 1936 ... which paraphrasedly states that, absent experiential > recognition, > systemic information self-insulates on itself.) In this case, the > presumption > is that perfect quantification is possible; and in -that- basis, that > probability > valuations are designatable (fixed), for all situations and scenarios > possible. > > That is -not- the 'generalized case'. Those presumptions, which classical > non-FL > math is built on, is closely-defined and therefore godelianly incomplete. > > Specificly - there are at least two non-considered factors in conventional > computation: all possible simpletemporal-conditions, and, gross-set and > sub-setS of relations that 'exist' when the entire spectrum of simpletemporal > conditions are included. > > This situation stems from the mathematical principle: "Simplfy". Yes, it > helps remove extranous information-noise and makes some certain relationship > clear and identifiable. But it also -removes- from thoughtful consideration > the information resident in and analytically important about - the total > mathematical environment. > > Let me give you a pragmatic example with at least two ramification > implications that conventional analysis/presumptions -totally miss-. > > Consider the gaussian-mean curve. It has been classically analyzed > to death; all things about it considered: complete/known. > > That is a major deficiency/error. > > Consider the equation form that produces the standard-deviation > curve. It is known; isolated, independent. > > Now consider any 'real events' that produce and mimic/map the curve. > I like to use two, each which highlight two missing-consideration > factors. First, is random test results from some 'standardized' > exam. If you set up a criteria for accurate/innacurate answers, > the resulting spectrum is typically the standard deviation curve. > The time sequence of the answers registered is open, just the net > patterned result. In otherwords, the distribution curve misses > two essential input-factors: the reason the testing event happened, > and, the time frame of measurement. The testing event is 'factored > out' -causal impetus/energy- brought to zero/one, the time frame of > testing is 'factored out' (brought to zero/one). > > Second is a pachinco apparatus, with balls falling though a > matrix of pegs. Run enough sample events and you reproduce > gaussian mean-distributiuon curve. But there are at least > two missed factors/presumptions. One is the presumption of > component ordered-relations. And relatedly, the presumption > of a stable universal impetus-field being present; it is > assumed, taken for granted, and ... 'factored out'. The > gravity/gradient field the apparatus resides in. > > Take the pachinco apparatus made of wooden pegs. Placed the > board non-orthogonal to the gravity gradient field. Run > samples with matched-to-pegsize ball bearings and you get > the traditional result. > > Run the sampling again, but use bowling balls. The 'standard > mean' curve is now and every time - a straight line. This is > an extreme, but ALSO IMPORTANT limit potential of the > standard deviation. Run the sampling again, using perfectly > elastic/reflective particles and some runs produce the > refraction patterns seen during the early atom-nucleus > investigations - particles curved or shadowed by their > reaction to encounters with the form or fields of the > atomic nuclei. Run the sampling again with the balls and > pegs matched as originally, but place the board flat on the > ground orthogonal to the 'motivation' field of earths gravity; > or place the apparatus in far outerspace in the appropriate > 'initial configuration for starting a test run'. In both these > environmental situations/orientations -- nothing happens. No > 'curve' or results get done. In otherwords, absent an > impetus/gradient, no 'standard deviation' profile is produced. > > This means that there is a MISSING FACTOR which we discount > in computation work, because we presume SOME gradient or impetus > is 'always present' and need not be considered for existing ot > not. It means that for general statement accuracy a 'g' gradient > factor should be always written and stated ahead of the standard > equation form, to prevent its presence and potential impact on > evaluation be missed, dissed, and left out for those critical > conditions where the 'rate of event' or 'production of event > conditions' is ignored and remissly overlooked. > > So right off the bat, the analysis of statistical potential > IN ALL THINGS is deficient by not correctly including one or > more time parameters (which coincides with: simultaneous > consideration of all-states, both when an entity or relation > is identifiably present, AND, when it/they are NOT.) This means, > that standard traditional statistical analysis is a SUBSET, > a limit set, of QM statistics which considers both existential > and neg-existential factors (potentia) .. SIMULTANEOUSLY. > > Calculations are already deficient by not counting null-state > as a unit factor possibility. and null-state for each and > every non-null option. > > When this is done, factorial enumeration counts become > insignificant. When null states are -included- in states > count, by the time you get to three existential non-null > count, the statistical alternatives of combinatoric options > is OVER 100 alternative distinct 'relations states with > considered potentials'. > > And this is just with re-analysis of -standard- non Fuzzy Logic > (which I prefer to call Zadeh Logic in respect and honor of > its delineator/designer). > > When you open the option parameters beyond 0,1 (which is no > less important than Complexity which now explores and uses > non-wholenumber 'dimensions' in exponents .. 'fractal dimensions') > you explore the fuller Stochastic space that logic must obligatorally > address and speak to as well. > > . > . > . > . > > Consistency and completeness then require re-review in a fuller > and larger context. that the previous bounded-logics were, and are not, > capable of dealing with. > > There is no longer: A and not-A. There is conditional-A, probable-A, > never-A, partial-A, and ... each of these if/when/ever in union with > time parameter(s). I.e., non-Abelian sequencing alternatives of all > factors needs to be included as well. (got a headache yet? :-) ) > > For example, consider the 'options space' and 'options-potentials space' > of the universe at any given moment (this generally ties in with > multi-verse concepts, but puts a bit more meat on its bones ; and with > critically present errors in entropy analysis as its currently performed). > > At any given moment, scenario events and causal results-states, not only > open up and future enable potentials that did not exist moments before, > there is the SIMULTANEOUS extinction, preclusion, closure and PREVENTION > of equally or larger domains of states-options can can no longer possibly > exist. > > Current analytical methods totally ignore considering such plural unbounded > potentials subsets; especially on a scale that includes cybernetic relations > and transfinite spaces for existence, and alternative-existences, states, > and for relations/performance spaces concurrent with 'extancy'. > > Re-worded: at any given moment and depending on which parameters and > extancy/potential set one uses as criteria for analysis .. some relational > entropies are increasing, while others are proportionally DEcreasing. > > Entropy is not monolithic, there are categorical sub-domains, AND, there > are local regional proportionally changing domains. AND entroepy is not > exclusively 'thermodynamic'. Probability states differentials are evaluable > and patternable .. there is gradientable sensibility assignable to all > sorts of parameters. Each and every one has its own, and comparable to > others, > entroepy aspect/gradient. > > These and more are absolutely Zadeh Logic options, that standard logic, > computation, physics, conventional analysis is not built to evaluate; > and are deficient because of that. > > Godelian incompleteness theorems - when generalized - wholly miss > important information, ignore relational constants, that are > superior and universal. > > . > . > . > > I know I didn't address your 'universe doesn't exist' logic review. > You were exampling a viable logic/analysis that is problematic and > illuminates for you the possibility that logic as currently practiced > harbors inconsistencies and errors, and you want to explore other > possibilities. I understand that. I agree with the anomaly you > identify and gave you reason to explore 'something else' and question > the 'what is'. > > My above remarks showcased a few of the anomalies -I- recognized and > the conclusions I reached on re-review of ideas/understandings. > > I -know- you are on a correct path of thinking/exploring. > Lots of great possibilities are ahead of you. > > I found some wonderful things, like how to determine the > ratio of any-dimensioned sphere, volume::surface area, > without having to do any exotic calculus calculations. > I discovered that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle > is a direct statement of spacetime geometry, a particular > limit equation of relativity options. In otherwords, > QM has a direct connection with Relativity. (!) > > All sorts of new-realities are in the math. The uncourageous > and overly habituated practitioners could never discover them. > > Good luck on -your- journey of discovery. > > Jamie Rose > > cc: RR list --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---