I consider your post rather insightful at first glance and worthy for
further study. Therefore, a delay may occur between now and a
On Mar 23, 8:46 pm, James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
> systemic information self-insulates on itself.) In this case, the
> is that perfect quantification is possible; and in -that- basis, that
> valuations are designatable (fixed), for all situations and scenarios
> That is -not- the 'generalized case'. Those presumptions, which classical
> 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
> 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
> 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