Marsha: >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.
Ron: >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. Marsha: 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. Ron: I thought thats what you were talking about. zero and infinity are two different concepts. Zero is a "thing" that stands for "nothing" a reification of an idea that doesent really exist in experience while infinity could be said to model experience. >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 > > > > > > >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/ 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/
