Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?

From: James N Rose <>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 06:54:17 -0700

Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but
I am of a like-mind to him.

What I have discerned, is an important insight
that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you
point out, make things mightily more complicated.

There is level of complication that has been with
us all the time, but which we have smoothly or
inadvertantly 'chosen' to ignore; because it is too
intimate within standard functions and operations to
be immediately noticed.

EVERY integration, or differentiation; or multiplication
or division of a non-scalar factor ... changes the
dimensionality of a relational equation. This, by
default, changes the rank of the corresponding Cantorian

No statistical evaluation stands alone as if borne full
grown. It exits -within- a mathematical landscape of
adjacent and extended functionFORMS that are the rest of
the pre-integrations, pre-differentiations, pre-multiplicands,
pre-dividands ... that "surround" it in 'mathematical space'.

And it, in and of itself, represents a part of the 'mathematical
environment' for any and all of those .. 'others'.

The beautiful simplicity is that -every- change of dimensional
specification, CONVERTS mathematical statements, IN COMPARISON

If, for example, a base function was qualia deterministic,
the conversion reveals the function product to be qualia

And even more 'confusing', as it were, is the concept that
we can take a base datum group, assign it an 'identity',
change the dimensionality as described above, and end up,
not with an 'alternative function/identity', but with the
Base Datum Identity -- SEEN as if looking at it through
alternate lenses and windows. IT 'stays' the same; we
'appreciate' -- different relational aspects that are
there all the time but unrecognized because the
mathematic-statements are out lenses of focus.

Choose a different mathematical lens (like choosing
a different wavelength of energy) and you 'see'
something different.

Intrinsic to all observables -and- mathematic-forms,
are BOTH deterministic -and- statistical relations.

They CONVERT. They CONSERVE. Even through the change
of qualia. They REVEAL ... different relations when
seem through options math-viewers.

Quite fascinating.


April 3, 2007

> Jamie,
> wise words, but no cigar here. For a "RE-Evaluation" I have
> insufficient knowledge even in the "E" - to compare it into a "RE-".
> Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being
> just a 'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical
> fraction of the totality within boundaries of our capabilities to
> observe) because so far nobody (incl our computers) had the mental
> power to exercise statistics upon the infinite totality - which
> would be trivial anyway. Stathis is wise to concentrate on THIS
> (our?) universe in his Stathistical considerations, as he mentioned.
> If we include the multiverse (any definition) into statistics it would
> produce inadvertently infinites compared to infinites and it would
> require a Georg Cantor to find out how to compare all those infinites.
> The sophisticated 'statistical' and 'probabilistic' math is fine, it
> is a good mental game, but all is originated in limited patterns for
> the comparison.
> Change the boundaries of your model (selection) and both the
> statistical figures and the (arbitrary? so called:) probabilities
> will change.(Useful though they are in building our technology).
> You need a vacation from the mathematical brainwashing to agree.
> I feel, you have it.
> John

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Apr 03 2007 - 09:54:47 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST