Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: huge on 9 Apr 2010 16:29
Rick :

> huge wrote:
>> Rick :
>>
>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and
>>>>>>>>> heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind
>>>>>>>>> of response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition you were working to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-response again noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting. HERE IT
>>>> IS AGAIN:
>>>> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that
>>>> **DO** use time."
>>>
>>> distance = time * velocity
>>
>> That is the definition of *distance.* It is not the definition of
>> "sequence" itself.
>>
>> You want a definition of sequence like this one from Planet Math:
>> http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=397
>> ___________________________
>> Sequences
>> Given any set X , a sequence in X is a function f:X from the set of
>> natural numbers to X . Sequences are usually written with subscript
>> notation: x0x1x2 , instead of f(0)f(1)f(2) . Generalized sequences
>> One can generalize the above definition to any arbitrary ordinal. For
>> any set X , a generalized sequence or transfinite sequence in X is a
>> function f:X where is any ordinal number. If is a finite ordinal, then
>> we say the sequence is a finite sequence. ___________________________
>>
>> That is only one among several ways to define a sequence.
>
> Time is a sequence then:
> authors.library.caltech.edu/3523/01/FEYpr49c.pdf

Correct, time is a sequence.
But you cannot define a sequence by that,
in the same way you can't define the set of animals by
noting that a dog is an animal.



--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: John Jones on 10 Apr 2010 22:54
Yap wrote:
> On 4 Apr, 09:38, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Yap wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 8:34 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>>> Unclear sentence.
>>>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
>>>> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
>>>> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
>>>> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
>>> Now, A to B fits nicely in sequence.
>> Why would it? is my point.
> You are the one who put the condition that A-B, not me.
>>> Then A to B to C is also a sequence.
>> But A to B to C is a sequence because you associate A with B and C.
> No, again that was what you projected.
>>> But why would you equate the two, since A to B will never reach C?
>> It's not the reaching that matters here. We only need to make an
>> association, not a reaching.
> I don't understand.
> First of all, you said I associate them but I did it with your
> condition.
> Anyway, even if not reaching, what is your point in the association?
>
> In a lot of instances, you do not need time as an element. But to come
> to think of it, any association may actually require time to make
> sense.
>

No. that's all I can say.
From: Kevin on 12 Apr 2010 18:14
On Apr 1, 7:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>
> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
>
> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of
> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason
> to expect any order at all among world-events.  Without Time, there
> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C.
> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but
> "association" seems to bring no laws at all.
>
> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then
> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the
> harmony and order of determinism.
>
> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than
> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it,
> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated
> with other events? Is there a law at work?
>
> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example,
> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each
> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated
> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other
> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We
> can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as
> a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that
> aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world
> itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as
> there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as
> these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed..
>
> Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years
> ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter
> of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian
> idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has
> its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are
> associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a
> sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without
> making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an
> oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a
> traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism.

If this topic were important I would have remembered the reasons why...
From: John Jones on 17 Apr 2010 22:12
huge wrote:
> Rick :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> Rick :
>>>
>>>> John Jones wrote:
>>>>> huge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Scientific thinking has led to the Hubble space telescope and
>>>>>>>>>> heart transplants. Now, don't you think that deserves some kind
>>>>>>>>>> of response to explain why you persist in this obscurantism?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition you were working to.
>>>>>> Non-response again noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The definition you were obviously working to and rejecting. HERE IT
>>>>> IS AGAIN:
>>>>> "I don't know of any mathematical definitions of a sequence that
>>>>> **DO** use time."
>>>> distance = time * velocity
>>> That is the definition of *distance.* It is not the definition of
>>> "sequence" itself.
>>>
>>> You want a definition of sequence like this one from Planet Math:
>>> http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=397
>>> ___________________________
>>> Sequences
>>> Given any set X , a sequence in X is a function f:X from the set of
>>> natural numbers to X . Sequences are usually written with subscript
>>> notation: x0x1x2 , instead of f(0)f(1)f(2) . Generalized sequences
>>> One can generalize the above definition to any arbitrary ordinal. For
>>> any set X , a generalized sequence or transfinite sequence in X is a
>>> function f:X where is any ordinal number. If is a finite ordinal, then
>>> we say the sequence is a finite sequence. ___________________________
>>>
>>> That is only one among several ways to define a sequence.
>> Time is a sequence then:
>> authors.library.caltech.edu/3523/01/FEYpr49c.pdf
>
> Correct, time is a sequence.
> But you cannot define a sequence by that,
> in the same way you can't define the set of animals by
> noting that a dog is an animal.

That's the only way you can define a sequence. By referencing time.
From: John Jones on 17 Apr 2010 22:13
Kevin wrote:
> On Apr 1, 7:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>>
>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
>> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
>> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
>> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
>>
>> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of
>> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason
>> to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there
>> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C.
>> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but
>> "association" seems to bring no laws at all.
>>
>> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then
>> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the
>> harmony and order of determinism.
>>
>> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than
>> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it,
>> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated
>> with other events? Is there a law at work?
>>
>> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example,
>> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each
>> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated
>> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other
>> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We
>> can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as
>> a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that
>> aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world
>> itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as
>> there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as
>> these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed.
>>
>> Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years
>> ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter
>> of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian
>> idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has
>> its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are
>> associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a
>> sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without
>> making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an
>> oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a
>> traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism.
>
> If this topic were important I would have remembered the reasons why...

The upshot was, there is no time or determinism.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?