At 07:16 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
Marsha,
Perhaps zero and infinity are too abstract. In computers, 0 stands for on/off
with 1. loops are bad programing. viruses began as loops of bad programing.
Bad programing is sloppy programing, intructions
that do not account for it's own
errors in logic. Until it malfunctions. This a
very simplistic explaination and
the actual processes are very complex.
Aren't you talking about two separate systems,
the electrical circuitry represented by a binary
numerical system and the decimal numerical system
abstracted and used by mathematicians. Sure
sloppy programming in a application sense, but
within the theoretical equations of physicists I
would image both, zero and infinity, are legitimate answers.
But believe me in this realm I really, really, really know zero.
Infinity is a running integer. the running integer is dynamic and is useful
in terms of limits and a fairly accurate model of flux. This is why
I was so turned on by topos theory, sets of infinite variables may
build or decrease to form or disolve higher set orders. It models an evolving
dynamic structure of variables, if one introduces high values or low values
to a "sheaf" or value set, one may see how it effects the whole model
holistically.
I thought it was pretty neat.
-Ron
________________________________
From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:54:40 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
Could the zero be so dreaded because of the
computer? In days of old, dividing by zero would
cause a computer program to crash, and infinity
would put it into an never-ending
loop. Naaaa. It must be that zero and infinity are too dynamic.
At 06:08 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>And I believe a zero, or two, is one of the big
>reasons why the hunt for the Hadron, at Fermilab and soon at CERN.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 02:44 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>Sharath, Marsha,
>I've heard it described as a place holder for numerical values
>a whole number representing nothing. which caused a stir
>in Greek philosophy.
>Zero figures heavily in physics and chemistry
>and denotes a point of beginning.
>infintesimals are addressed in calculus and higher mathematics.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:26:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
>
>
>
>
>Not sure, but zero, along with infinity, does
>seem to be something physicists don't want as an answer in their equations.
>
>
>
>At 02:23 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
> >I wonder what really is zero
> >
> >On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:08 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't Joe create something like a Plank's Constant for himself, one
> > > guaranteed to get rid of those nasty zeros.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 01:56 PM 7/15/2009, you wrote:
> > >
> > >> Joe,
> > >> Well, division by zero is not so much "physically impossible" as it is
> > >> "in violation of mathematical axioms."
> > >> Division by zero is an operation for which you cannot find an answer,
> > >> so it is disallowed. You can understand why if you think about how
> > >> division and multiplication are related.
> > >> 12 divided by 6 is 2 because
> > >> 6 times 2 is 12
> > >>
> > >> 12 divided by 0 is x would mean that
> > >> 0 times x = 12
> > >>
> > >> But no value would work for x because 0
> times any number is 0. So division
> > >> by zero doesn't work.
> > >>
> > >> There's a special word for stuff like
this, where you could conceivably
> > >> give
> > >> it any number of values. That word is
"indeterminate." It's not the same
> > >> as
> > >> undefined. It essentially means that if
it pops up somewhere, you don't
> > >> know
> > >> what its value will be in your case. For
instance, if you have the limit
> > >> as x->0
> > >> of x/x and of 7x/x, the expression will have a value of 1 in the first
> > >> case and 7
> > >> in the second case. Indeterminate.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Joseph Maurer <[email protected]>
> > >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:58:28 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism
> > >>
> > >> Hi Bo,
> > >>
> > >> I will work on the complications. Thank
> you! for your encouragement, and
> > >> the Time you have put into MOQ.
> > >>
> > >> Joe
> > >> On 7/13/09 11:14 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hello Joe
> > >> >
> > >> > I've noticed comments from you that includes me, but I have
> > >> > developed some eye problem (when gazing at the screen for a long
> > >> > time some strange patterns start to
> appear) I must simply limit myself
> > >> > ...give priority to "saving the MOQ" :-)
> > >> >
> > >> > However, this your input goes to the heart of the matter:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Imho (in my humble opinion), MOQ
(Metaphysics Of Quality) reasonably
> > >> >> changed the basis of the logic of SOM (Subject Object Metaphysics).
> > >> >
> > >> > Right you are.
> > >> >
> > >> >> SOM logic defines an undefined subject by the action of a defining
> > >> >> verb. In the case of dividing by 0 this is illogical. Descartes
> > >> >> states: ³I think therefore I am!²
> > >> >
> > >> > As ZAMM describes it SOM emerged as a result of the Greek
> > >> > philosophical frenzy that brought that culture away from its old
> > >> quality-
> > >> > based (Aretê) reality. Now, with LILA
this must be put into a Q-level
> > >> > context and it's plain that SOM is the
> intellectual level emerging from
> > >> > Aretê as the social level. And only now can Descartes' statement be
> > >> > evaluated and we see that SOM (with
him) had reached its final stage,
> > >> > a mental (mind) realm totally removed the material one. After
> > >> > Descartes - with the empiricist - arose the problem which of the two
> > >> > realms is the real (causes the other) and that see-saw that has gone
> > >> > up and down ever since. This quandary was what brought young
> > >> > Phaedrus to despair and triggered his
Quality insight that (as you so
> > >> > correctly say) "...changed the basis of the logic of SOM"
> > >> >
> > >> >> The subject has only intentional
> existence. Aristotle defines motion
> > >> >> in a similar way: ³The act of a being
> in potency in as much as it is in
> > >> >> potency.² In SOM the subject is undefined (with only intentional
> > >> >> existence from the object) and becomes defined by the action of the
> > >> >> verb and object. E.g., the man is
> eating. The ³man² is defined in the
> > >> >> eating, and we can distinguish the ³man² from a statue.
> > >> >
> > >> > This may be correct, but terribly complicated. SOM's problem is that
> > >> > the subject can't exist without the
> world, and the world not without the
> > >> > subject, i.e. the mind/matter duality is an aggregate and yet SOM's
> > >> > logical base does not allow this so
it's plain that a fundamental base
> > >> > shift is needed ... just what the MOQ is and in its light the S/O
> > >> > distinction becomes its STATIC
intellectual level. This way the VALUE
> > >> > is retained while the problems dissolve.
> > >> >
> > >> >> In MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality) the subject is defined in an
> > >> >> evolutionary hierarchy. The object, the level of evolution, is
> > >> >> defined in the action, SOL.
> > >> >
> > >> > At least the above about SOM = the intellectual level is the SOL
> > >> > interpretation.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yours sincerely
> > >> >
> > >> > Bodvar
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
>
>____________
>
>"Compassion diminishes fright about your own
>pain and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
>
>
>
>Moq_Discuss mailing list
>Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>Archives:
>http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
____________
"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain
and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
____________
"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain
and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
