Objects
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
Next: Bending Time and Space: A Conclusive 1st Simple Counterexample Disproving Alan Turing's Claim The Diagonalization Argument Provides Proof the Halting Problem Cannot Be Solved.
From: Jonathan on 14 May 2010 18:53 "John Jones" <jonescardiff(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:hsi6io$u5e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do not > have a body, nor is an object heavy. > > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way that > is distinct from the behaviour of properties. > > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of (or > is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not physical. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Albert Einstein Math is just an attempt to simplify the complicated real world. The greater the simplification, the more accurate the math. Only reaching complete accuracy when finding the simplest possible, which is farthest from reality possible. Implying of course that all questions of meaning are found farthest from accuracy, farthest from objective scientific methods as possible. At the most subjective and abstract. There is no such thing as an objective reality. As our perception of reality is often the most powerful variable of all deciding the the future of our surroundings. Since objective methods take us farthest from truth and understanding, we must simply inverse the method. Instead of a part detail driven method of deriving fundamental laws, we use the output of the whole. We let the global system behavior serve as our primary source of knowledge. And to be rigorous we must also begin with the most complex systems the universe has to offer, not the simplest parts. And we measure a systems behavior against it's possible behavior. So in essence all things are compared to themselves, not other things or independent yardstick. .. This boils down to abstractly modeling the most complex systems known, which are living systems. Called a complex adaptive system, this new mathematics of complexity science is essentially the abstract form of Darwinian evolution. In abstract form this math applies as well to living systems, as it does to the less complex ones such as physical systems. By rigorously inversing our method of understanding, we discover that living systems best display the fundamental (system) properties of the universe. Our fundamental laws are to be derived from the most complex the universe has to offer, life. Not the other way around, which is looking to the physical universe first to understand higher order. A single mathematical language for all the real world complex dynamic systems that exist, physical or living. http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 15 May 2010 00:40 In my opinion. there are are no "objects" since they're continually changing and therefore unable to be objectified as a thing apart for the employment of subjective rulings in order to carry out the stories that interact with the state at those points in time after they happen. The fourth dimnetation of time is interesting facet in the order of things.
From: jillarontown on 15 May 2010 00:54 John Jones wrote: Quote... "There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do not have a body, nor is an object heavy. Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way that is distinct from the behaviour of properties." ...End Quote. Response.1: Most of this, and especially that last sentence is a stipulation. How can you convince us that it is true by showing us a physical 'work' of the 'behavior of properties' in relation to a differentiation from an object's 'certain way' of behavior? Quote.2... "Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not physical." ...End Quote. Response.2: It still remains a problem for me that stipulation is not an axiom. The volume of a sphere agrument is axiomatic. Your stipulation in Q.1 is not. Therefore, it must be applied to field physics. It requires showing us 'work' asked for in R.1. Not convinced. regards, Vjillaris
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 02:14 On May 14, 5:19 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 5:25 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 13, 7:47 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do > > > not have a body, nor is an object heavy. > > > > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the > > > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way > > > that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. > > > > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the > > > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only > > > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a > > > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of > > > (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not > > > physical. > > > Even atoms have properties. Look at oxygen and hydrogen. > > The whole entire ocean is their properties. > > However you describe items, senses, even your physical makeup, all can > be reduced to energy, so it follows that one 'level of formed energy > recognises (in sentient beings) other forms within the common frame of > reference. > > This is why it is only people who have experienced genuine psychic > phenomena,as an example, can relate, and those who havnt , regartdless > of their intellect, simple cannot. Teh describing colour to a blind > man syndrome. > > Its all about consciouness expansion. > > Wherever I go, you can go and do greater works" comes from your own > belief system > > There's believib=ng and- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PS. I was writing this in the airport pay station, and the moey ran out :-).. There is believing and knowing. As the reliance of beliefs subside, the knowing emerges, otherwise there is deep disturbance within (which is why there are increases in psychological 'instabilities' in modern society. The emerging 'knowingness' regarding freedom within the individual, is confronted by the past images of belief based actions and attitudes. Good for big pharma of course !!! BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 02:17
On May 14, 6:37 pm, Zerkon <Z...(a)erkonx.net> wrote: > On Fri, 14 May 2010 01:47:26 +0100, John Jones wrote: > > There are no physical objects that have properties. For example, we do > > not have a body, nor is an object heavy. > > > Rather, properties are a means of identifying one type of object, the > > physical object. The physical object behaves in a certain way, a way > > that is distinct from the behaviour of properties. > > > Thus, it follows that all physical objects are identical. For the > > mathematician or logician, it also follows that a function only > > establishes a relationship between variables when the variables are of a > > particular type. For example, the volume of a sphere is a function of > > (or is related to) the radius of a sphere only if the sphere is not > > physical. > > How then can an apple fall from a tree and land on the ground? Why say it does? The tree and ground move and the apple stays still, is just as valid. BOfL |