Hi Ron Sounds in the right direction to me, relates to the benefits and costs of 'analogue' versus 'digital' does it not?
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > David, > Here's the whole casaba.... > The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke > about rounding and estimating. > For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers > to integers (no decimal places) > and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator > will automatically round, > so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. > When you punch in the > 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you > add, the sum 4.95 will > be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough. > > It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All > measurements in the real world > (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; > they're always rounded to > something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must > come into play > sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is > a reminder about the > way that estimation errors compound. > > 1+1+1=1,(.45+.45+.45=1.35) my emphisis lies in the averaging. the value > for absolute. > Beginning and end, zero, and any absolute, is a contruct for > understanding An illusionary tool. > 1+1 can equal 3. 1+1 can equal 2. 1+1 can equal 1. > Three outcomes depending on the value of 1 . > > > 1 works if zero is taken to mean something, an absolute. then every > whole is an assumed absolute But in reality it is'nt. math is > meaningless until an absolute is assumed.you have to have a cut-off To > precipitate a round then you may reach an absolute 1. but does reality > have a cut-off point To cause a rounding? Averaging is the closest we > can come to any kind of precision. > > Here's my point, enter 1 into your calculator then divide by two until > you reach zero. > If 1 is absolute then zero can be achieved. You are assuming one has a > beginning and an end 1.0 Rests on zero. 0.9 never reaches 1.0, 1.0 > never reaches 1.1 But by rounding. Fucked up huh? Math goes Kaplooey > when used to measure reality. > You must assume an absolute value based on an average for it to function > or you just chase Your tail down the rabbit hole at getting to 1 from > zero. > > > subjectively > Math works when : > > the subject evaulates the object . > accuracy of value is directly related to depth of precision > depth of precision is infinate > subject determines accuracy through useful depth of precision. > useful depth of precision is determined by the value > of the subject to the object in relation to the subjects > awareness and intent. > > objectivly > math works when opposites are paired > with a value being the cause > cause is the nature of the opposites > the value of the opposite depends > on the levels of the opposing charge > this is perpetual because the value is ever > changing into itself. > > > > it is reasonable to believe change exists . > > so, "value" is the infinate perpetual relationship between > subjective awareness , and an everchanging > infinate objective reality. > > or as RMP put it, Quality is the primary cause of reality, every last > bit. > and as you say case, it's not working to an end, it's all random, not > chaotic but a randomly arranged hiearchy built rather pragmaticlly > on what sticks together longer than other random arrangements > given the nature of the value of the material.. > > That the only thing that makes Any sense is the eternal action of > opposites. That "action" applies to all other orders of Reality like > uncle Bob said. Both subject and object, plus it is the same action > which results in The value between subject and object. That's why when > pursued objectivly you chase your own tail. > Subjectivly you get solopsism or theism. But when you value the "mean" > pragmatism is useful In the MOQ method and then greater accuracy in > perception and understanding is possible. > I feel the rounding error paradox is the "proof" of the MOQ. > It makes it solid..dare I say, a legitimate metaphysics. > > The rounding error is the action of dynamic quality. > Dynamic quality can not be defined > It is infinate possiblity. > To name it is to give it an assumed absolute value. > Which does not exist. > To give it an assumed absolute value decreases the Accuracy but allows > it to be percieved. > > Only when we make 1 static can 1 be useful- ie. assuming an absolute > value of 1. > When 1 is dynamic it can not be touched. > > > 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/
