- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: rwas rwas <mc68332.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT)

Hello,

--- Joel Dobrzelewski <dobrzele.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

*> Russell and Brent:
*

*>
*

*> I understand this is an extreme position, but I
*

*> state it this way on
*

*> purpose: to bring the issue to the foreground and
*

*> get to the heart of the
*

*> problem of science today.
*

*>
*

*> As long as we insist that continuous objects really
*

*> exist -
*

*> ****we will always*****
*

No, we're finite and discrete remember?

*> be fooling ourselves and forever chasing an
*

*> unobtainable ghost.
*

*>
*

*> Descriptions of continuous structures are only that
*

*> - descriptions. And
*

*> they will *always* remain finite and discrete.
*

Discrete and finite viewpoints are an artifact of a

finite consciousness.

*>
*

*> The symbol "PI" is a finite description for an
*

*> infinite *process*.
*

*>
*

*> No sheet of paper or gigabyte of RAM can contain PI.
*

It can, just not all at once. YOu could say Ram and

paper are temporally challenged entities.

*>
*

*> And thus, any theory we create or program we write
*

*> MUST truncate PI at come
*

*> point... otherwise we will forever be waiting for
*

*> the theory to produce its
*

*> first result.
*

*>
*

*> const PI = 3.1415926535
*

*>
*

*> These descriptions are entirely misleading - only
*

*> approximations - never
*

*> reality.
*

I strongly disagree.

Reality is a relative construct anyway, a

construction, and agreement by a group of people

large enough to enforce it.

*>
*

*> It would be better to do this...
*

*>
*

*> const PI = 11101010000100010001111111100000111
*

*>
*

*> But even this is wrong. To truly illustrate the
*

*> point, we must do the
*

*> following...
*

*>
*

*> function PI () as string
*

*> do
*

*> 'calculate PI
*

*> loop
*

*> end function
*

*>
*

*> Does the function PI() ever return a value?
*

*>
*

*> No.
*

*>
*

*> It is not within our reach.
*

*>
*

*> This is not proof that there is no continuum.
*

*>
*

*> Only evidence that there can be no continuum FOR US.
*

*ouch*

I just don't agree. If anything, your pi illustration

is a demonstration of a kind of continuum.

We are forced to interpret this infinite string in

finite terms because we *think* in finite terms.

One can train his brain to interpret any equation that

fits in his field of view simultaneously. That is, the

entire equation front to back as one visual/symbolic

entity. From there, the information would trickle back

through the neurons to form an expression the

interpreter disires. So in effect, to the limit of his

field of view, he sees the equation in it's entirety

simultaneously without delay. Only processing depth

incurs any delay.

This person could also see a limited sequence of

numbers produced by the equation, in this case pi, to

the extent of his field of usable vision, and

interpret this finite sequence, simultaneousy from

paper to brain. Only depth of processing delays would

be incurred.

Now assume someone with a field of view that is

infinite in one direction along with the required

neurons for processing. This person could interpret a

continuous infinite number set simultaneously.

We assume we cannot do this because we assume we are

finite and discrete. I say this thinking is limited to

self limited consciousness.

We might view another concept. This idea assumes that

are finite nature is illusory. Our brains made up of

~10^9 neurons and 10^12 connections exist as an

intersection into a conscious realm that only sees

discretely. We see a single neuron but in fact a

single neuron would be (in this concept) an

intersection into a preceptual space where discrete

conscousness exists.

So to our equation to evaluate pi, simply an

intersection into discrete perceptual space if

something continuous and infinite.

This concept allows one to interpret infinite number

sets without constraint to time. Assuming time itself

is an illusion of descrete/finite perceptual space,

our way of thinking may be the exception, and not the

rule of all possible perceptional and thinking spaces.

*>
*

*> For us, there can only be one infinite process in
*

*> the Universe - the
*

*> universe itself.
*

Are we truely seperate from the universe that gave

birth to us? Could it be, we and are finite/discrete

thinking and perceptional viewpoints are simply a

snapshot, an intersection of the universe's expression

of intelligence?

I assert that even our own existence is a continuum,

we only happen to be conscious at this point of our

development. In that, we are not seperate from the

universe that gave birth to us, every atom in our

bodies a mini-contimuum of existence, forming a

singular (aprently) expression of intelligence.

Robert W.

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/

Received on Mon Jun 18 2001 - 10:24:05 PDT

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:22:11 -0700 (PDT)

Hello,

--- Joel Dobrzelewski <dobrzele.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

No, we're finite and discrete remember?

Discrete and finite viewpoints are an artifact of a

finite consciousness.

It can, just not all at once. YOu could say Ram and

paper are temporally challenged entities.

I strongly disagree.

Reality is a relative construct anyway, a

construction, and agreement by a group of people

large enough to enforce it.

*ouch*

I just don't agree. If anything, your pi illustration

is a demonstration of a kind of continuum.

We are forced to interpret this infinite string in

finite terms because we *think* in finite terms.

One can train his brain to interpret any equation that

fits in his field of view simultaneously. That is, the

entire equation front to back as one visual/symbolic

entity. From there, the information would trickle back

through the neurons to form an expression the

interpreter disires. So in effect, to the limit of his

field of view, he sees the equation in it's entirety

simultaneously without delay. Only processing depth

incurs any delay.

This person could also see a limited sequence of

numbers produced by the equation, in this case pi, to

the extent of his field of usable vision, and

interpret this finite sequence, simultaneousy from

paper to brain. Only depth of processing delays would

be incurred.

Now assume someone with a field of view that is

infinite in one direction along with the required

neurons for processing. This person could interpret a

continuous infinite number set simultaneously.

We assume we cannot do this because we assume we are

finite and discrete. I say this thinking is limited to

self limited consciousness.

We might view another concept. This idea assumes that

are finite nature is illusory. Our brains made up of

~10^9 neurons and 10^12 connections exist as an

intersection into a conscious realm that only sees

discretely. We see a single neuron but in fact a

single neuron would be (in this concept) an

intersection into a preceptual space where discrete

conscousness exists.

So to our equation to evaluate pi, simply an

intersection into discrete perceptual space if

something continuous and infinite.

This concept allows one to interpret infinite number

sets without constraint to time. Assuming time itself

is an illusion of descrete/finite perceptual space,

our way of thinking may be the exception, and not the

rule of all possible perceptional and thinking spaces.

Are we truely seperate from the universe that gave

birth to us? Could it be, we and are finite/discrete

thinking and perceptional viewpoints are simply a

snapshot, an intersection of the universe's expression

of intelligence?

I assert that even our own existence is a continuum,

we only happen to be conscious at this point of our

development. In that, we are not seperate from the

universe that gave birth to us, every atom in our

bodies a mini-contimuum of existence, forming a

singular (aprently) expression of intelligence.

Robert W.

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.

http://buzz.yahoo.com/

Received on Mon Jun 18 2001 - 10:24:05 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*