| 10/14/2008 1:44:55 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 35
|
Consider the state of the universe or multiverse if you will. Causality seems to be the unchangeable consistent. Cause, effect. Action, reaction. There are no changing factors from the norm. There is no chaos. And I’m not talking about the philosophical idea of chaos in our daily lives, but the presence of “not order”. Where do we get the reference from that things had no order prior to our existence? We have no point of reference from which to draw this idea. All things can be broken down to a system of numbers, even ourselves. We are the result of both biological and environmental factors, and these are just math and physics to a different degree. The speed of the moon and earth rotating around one another, while rotating around the sun, while rotating around our galactic central point, are all just a series of numbers upon numbers. I have dubbed this the Universal Equation, from which nothing is exempt. There is no escaping it. We are where we are because that is how the numbers fell. You are reading this sentence for the exact same reason. And how you choose to answer or choose not to answer is the resultant of the aforementioned. My challenge to you is to show me something in our physical universe that numbers cannot be attributed to. Show me “not order” if you can…
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 10/14/2008 6:24:30 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
What an intriguing thread, Burnkitty!
I'm certainly not going to assert that everything can be quantified, or that some things can't be, but will focus on the issue of chaos.
As I see it, chaos is a social, or cognitive, or psychological concept. It expresses our subjective perception that things have become so complicated, or so out of control that we can neither understand them nor manage them.
One of the ways that brains deal with complexity is through simplification: finding patterns in events and then addressing the patterns while ignoring the rest of a situation is a prime example of simplification. Chaos, as we perceive it, is when we can't see the patterns that allow simplification, and so our brains feel overwhelmed. We call it chaos.
Your thesis leads into another area, too: predestination. If all is numbers, how can uncertainty enter into the picture, and if uncertainty is absent, can there be free will?
Back in my days -- daze -- as a sophomore in college, I realized that there were several arguments that could not be resolved as long as we were caught up in the language that we students and professors were using. One of these arguments was about free will. I came to the conclusion that it was a language-created issue. In the same way that we cannot build a battleship using only a chainsaw, so we weren't going to be able to solve the conundrum of free will with the language that we have so far used. Having offered that meta consideration, I'll bow out of the discussion on freewill that is likely to proceed from your very interesting concept.
And I'll leave you with a question: Where did the first number come from?
A good morning eye-opener!
Thanks.
Oceans
|
| 10/14/2008 6:49:03 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
lovesgod57
Waukegan, IL
age: 53
|
I have to disagree on one thing you present. Man is not part of the order of the universe, man is the variable. We are the the random generant which changes the equation that leads to a different solution. Even mathmatics allows for that. We are where we are because of the paths we choose.
Intergalactic probes are not part of nature, man has introduce them to the galaxy. They are filled with nuclear powerplants which when crushed by great gravity detonate into explosions to change the properties of other cosmic bodies. A meteor hitting a planet is one thing, but for a manmade device to alter its landscape is not a natual event.
You can apply your mathematical theory to the movements of celestial bodies. But to predict the future of the universe, with man in the equation, there will always be infinite possibilities.
[Edited 10/14/2008 6:55:12 AM ]
|
| 10/14/2008 6:59:20 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
scorpiomoon
Brattleboro, VT
age: 61
|
You guys amaze me...do you get any sleep at all? I am still back at "Consider"..
|
| 10/14/2008 7:06:11 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
Chaos is order in transition, usually seen as high energy state....We just do not have the language and computational power to explain it or even see it as a type of order.
Numbers and their derivatives are the alphabet of a language, the only language that can explain chaos and other complex things.
"Not order" depends upon how one defines order and what time frame is put upon it.Remove time by freezing "chaos" and a subtle, highly complex order is there to be found.
"Free will" has been injected into the thread....Free will is either an illusion, or it is the evolved state of directed energetic order...I tend to lean toward "illusion"/delusion.
People want to believe they have some control over themselves and thus their future.
But their choices are programmed and the illusion of free will is a coping delusion.
|
| 10/14/2008 9:42:10 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
the reason for Hawkins revision of Quantum Universe theory...
to say all things are recoverable.
nothing is lost from forever.
the old theory went against God and said once things go into (or out) a black hole the were lost for ever.
the mathematic order includes rare events that may seem random.
magnetic field reversal. the human race. molecule of the most potent radioactive isotopes. all are just part of the figures used in these complex equasions.
|
| 10/14/2008 11:32:14 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
"""Quantum theory describes the world perfectly - To quote Ross Rhodes: "so perfectly that its symbolic, mathematical predictions always prevail over physical insight and so called 'common sense'. The equivalence between quantum symbolism and universal reality must be more than an oddity - in fact it clearly implies that quantum symbolism is the nature of reality." Ross Rhodes 'A World with a View'""""
|
| 10/14/2008 1:23:45 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
stormbay
Tasmania
Australia
age: 65
|
My challenge to you is to show me something in our physical universe that numbers cannot be attributed to. Show me “not order” if you can…
The voids which permeate the universe and they are discovering, don't fit to their mathematical thinking and defy physics, as does some of the latest discoveries of exploding stars and their interaction with the so far mathematically unquantifiable dark matter and dark energy.
There is much chaos in the universe, the problem we face is our concept of time compared to the universe, is minuscule. The entire life of our solar system is a trillionth of a millisecond in the time of the universe, so what we see is balance, but from a universal time, it is rapidly and constantly changing amidst what could be called, controlled chaos.
|
| 10/14/2008 1:25:05 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
indoubt
Beaumont, CA
age: 35
|
Im not touching this one. Numbers and I do not get along 
|
| 10/14/2008 1:30:25 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Wonderful posts, all!
We should keep in mind the distinction between numerical observation and measurement, and theories of physics, though they may be expressed mathematically.
In terms of this discussion, this means that we can measure things without understanding why they are, or without being able to create a model that will apply correctly to observations elsewhere.
Burnkitty's challenge, as I understand it, is to suggest things that we cannot measure or observe numerically. That we have several theories that cannot explain all that we see and think they ought to apply to, does not meet his challenge....
I'm I reading the challenge correctly?
|
| 10/14/2008 1:32:38 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Im not touching this one. Numbers and I do not get along
As I understand it, this is not so much about numbers and equations, but about quantification, that is, the interpretation of things through measurement.
'Is there anything that cannot be measured/' is the question that Burnkitty has put before us.
So please jump in, Indoubt!
|
| 10/14/2008 2:34:56 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 35
|
That would be the correct interpretation of my challenge, Oceans. Thank you for the clarification. Often I find myself unable to relay my context so that others understand my questions. 'Tis an artform of sorts. I agree that just because we don't understand certain things in the universe does not mean they are neccesarily exempt from measurement. Nonetheless... continue all...
|
| 10/14/2008 3:11:54 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
Evil and Satan represent Chaos. Chaos is lack of order and purpose. According to biblical standards the Whole Universe was and is in a form of Chaos-the results of certain actions or no action- Represents and is CHAOS! The destiny of man was predictable until all creation and most importantly MAN & WOMAN gave in to CHAOS=unpredictability.
Since almost the beginning of Creation, this Universe was thrown into CHAOS!
That is the truth! From then until now we are living in Universal CHAOS!
like it or not. Only God can and will re-establish UNIVERSAL ORDER! soon!
WE ARE LIVING IN CHAOS!yes-just look around this Earth with your eyes open-   
if satan follows any rule... "not to kill"..
then he is not of chaos but follows order.
God's universe was never out of order... it will be clearly seen soon.
next.
|
| 10/14/2008 4:45:02 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
"""It is humility, finally, that forces me to admit that the mathematical world exists independently of the manner in which we apprehend it, that it isn’t localized in time and space. But the manner in which we apprehend it is subject to rules very similar to those of biology. The evaluation of our perception of mathematical reality causes a new sense to develop, which gives us access to a reality that is neither visual nor auditory, but something else altogether."~Alain Connes, Chairman, Analysis and Geometry at College de France ,conversation published by Princeton University Press in 1995, entitled Random Thoughts About Mind, Matter, and Mathematics
Connes’ assertion is that the principles of mathematics exist independent of humanity. Unlike human language (reading, writing, etc.) the fundamental relationships that people refer to as mathematical are an innate part of the universe. Without people they would still exist. They are a divine set of rules which order the universe."
|
| 10/14/2008 4:51:52 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Well, Burnkitty, throughout dinner my mind danced around your question.
I'll take a shot, and I realize it is a cheap one.
Can one count or apply a number to infinity?
Can one count or apply a number(s) to transfinite numbers?
I know, this is not an elegant response.  But I'd like to hear your response.
I'm working on a better one suggestion, for later in this discussion.
Oceans
|
| 10/14/2008 4:53:45 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
"""It is humility, finally, that forces me to admit that the mathematical world exists independently of the manner in which we apprehend it, that it isn’t localized in time and space. But the manner in which we apprehend it is subject to rules very similar to those of biology. The evaluation of our perception of mathematical reality causes a new sense to develop, which gives us access to a reality that is neither visual nor auditory, but something else altogether."~Alain Connes, Chairman, Analysis and Geometry at College de France ,conversation published by Princeton University Press in 1995, entitled Random Thoughts About Mind, Matter, and Mathematics
Connes’ assertion is that the principles of mathematics exist independent of humanity. Unlike human language (reading, writing, etc.) the fundamental relationships that people refer to as mathematical are an innate part of the universe. Without people they would still exist. They are a divine set of rules which order the universe."
Great quote! You have a knack, my friend.
Paul Erdos in his pursuit of mathematical knowledge, coined the term "Supreme Fascist" to describe the standard of mathematical truth.
Oceans
|
| 10/15/2008 1:52:07 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 35
|
Yes, Oceans, in both questions these can be used as a form of measurement. With transfinite numbers, I tend to use the example of gravimetry, which is the measurement of the effects of a gravity feild on an object or energy. You may see this applied in geometrical representation using a cone. The present theory here is that all things are connected in this way by gravimetry. Were there only two particals of matter in the universe, the effects of gravimetry would draw them together no matter what the distance. Noting the geometrical plane, the effect lessens with distance. But even so, the numbers that represent the effects of these forces never reach true zero. The number might start with a point and go through a seemingly infinite ammount of zeros, but somewhere down the road there will be a number. Just because we do not know this number doesn't mean it isn't a relevant mathematical measurement. In the case of infinity, we oft see the symbol 8. This expresses the concept that is not only philosophical or theological, but mathematic as well. By saying it is boundless on the geometrical plane, we have given it structure and thus a measurement. I know a few people whom still have a problem thinking of infinity as it applies to both space and time. One lady specifically comes to mind when she told me her belief that after you went so far in one direction, you'd end up on the opposite side of the universe. Like we were trapped upon ourselves. It was easier for her to ponder the universe that way than think of things as ongoing. Nonetheless, even today infinity is considered a form of measurement, albiet individualistic of itself.
|
| 10/15/2008 1:55:06 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
indoubt
Beaumont, CA
age: 35
|
Ok I will have to get back to this one but I will try when I am more awake
|
| 10/15/2008 11:04:48 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
lees224
Cohoes, NY
age: 53
|
only One Stands Alone...One..
every other thing is an addition too..
Two eyes...two sides of the brain..
our eyes see reflection of our brains imagination...
everything is image..of numbers..what do we see..
even a molecule..even a millimeter..add one it changes..
words and numbers and image is in addition to life and the number one..
only one..is One..
|
| 10/15/2008 12:46:45 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
"""Can one count or apply a number to infinity?
Can one count or apply a number(s) to transfinite numbers? """
There is something that mathematicians use to deal with infinity, and the numbers always come up zero!...i don't believe them!!!!
as to application of numbers to transfinite,,,yes ,why not?
it is only the infinite that a number can not be applied to...
i see infinity as a process, and when one stops the process in order to measure it at some point, it is no longer infinity.
Actually, visualizing infinity hurts my brain...
So, i only envision 1/2 infinity!....
|
| 10/15/2008 1:57:54 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Well, OK, Skunk.
What is the number of 1/2 infinity?
And it had better not be a side-ways 4.
Heh heh heh!
|
| 10/15/2008 2:24:18 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
tohyup
York, ON
age: 48
|
Infinity ia a mathematical notion and exists by definition only . In a real world there is no infinity as numbers 0, 1, 2, ....etc . Many mathematical notions have engineering applications such as the imaginary numbers used in both electrical and electronics engineering . X squared plus one is zero . X is an imaginary number .
|
| 10/15/2008 3:06:20 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
Some people say that the theory evolution explains something in our physical universe.
I disagree.
Does anybody have numbers on that?
Or is it chaos?
|
| 10/15/2008 3:22:07 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
tohyup
York, ON
age: 48
|
I never believed in the evolution theory as there are many serious flaws with it .
|
| 10/15/2008 3:52:28 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
freethinker2112
Bentonville, AR
age: 43
|
I never believed in the evolution theory as there are many serious flaws with it .
The debate on evolution is almost non-existant amongst the scientific community. It is as solid a theory as the earth revolving around the sun. The only debate about evolution is how it works. Whether it is do to natural selection or other means. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.
[Edited 10/15/2008 3:53:01 PM ]
|
| 10/15/2008 4:56:09 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
The debate on evolution is almost non-existant amongst the scientific community. It is as solid a theory as the earth revolving around the sun. The only debate about evolution is how it works. Whether it is do to natural selection or other means. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.
No numbers? huh
|
| 10/15/2008 7:43:44 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
the mathematic possibility of evolution becoming fact is zero to none.
|
| 10/15/2008 8:37:47 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
freethinker2112
Bentonville, AR
age: 43
|
No numbers? huh
I was responding to a post.
But if you want numbers and facts here are some that a friend of mine posted on his blog. Evolution is a fact.
The earliest fossil hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery. It is dated at 4.4 million years ago. The remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall. Other fossils were found with the ramidus fossil which would suggest that ramidus was a forest dweller. A new skeleton was recently discovered which is about 45% complete. It is now being studied.
A new species, Australopithecus anamensis, was named in 1995. It was found in Allia Bay in Kenya. Anamensis lived between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.
Australopithecus afarensis lived between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. It retained the apelike face with a sloping forehead, a distinct ridge over the eyes, flat nose and a chinless lower jaw. It had a brain capacity of about 450 cc. It was between 3'6" and 5' tall. It was fully bipedal and the thickness of its bones showed that it was quite strong. Its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and face were proportionately much larger. This larger head with powerful jaws is a feature of all species prior to Homo sapiens sapiens.
Australopithecus africanus was quite similar to afarensis and lived between three and two million years ago. It was also bipedal, but was slightly larger in body size. Its brain size was also slightly larger, ranging up to 500 cc. The brain was not advanced enough for speech. The molars were a little larger than in afarensis and much larger than modern human. This hominid was a herbivore and ate tough, hard to chew, plants. The shape of the jaw was now like the human.
Australopithecus aethiopicus lived between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is probably an ancestor of the robustus and boisei. This hominid ate a rough and hard to chew diet. He had huge molars and jaws and a large sagittal crest. A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on the skull extending from the forehead to the back of the head. Massive chewing muscles were anchored to this crest. See the opening picture of an early Homo habilis for an example. Brain sizes were still about 500cc, with no indication of speech functions.
Australopithecus robustus lived between two and 1.5 million years ago. It had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more massive skull and teeth. Its huge face was flat and with no forehead. It had large brow ridges and a sagittal crest. Brain size was up to 525cc with no indication of speech capability.
Australopithecus boisei lived between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was quite similar to robustus, but with an even more massive face. It had huge molars, the larger measuring 0.9 inches across. The brain size was about the same as robustus. Some authorities believe that robustus and boisei are variants of the same species.
Homo habilis was called the handy man because tools were found with his fossil remains. This species existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The brain size in earlier fossil specimens was about 500cc but rose to 800cc toward the end of the species life period. The species brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. Habilis was about 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds. Some scientists believe that habilis is not a separate species and should be carried either as a later Australopithecine or an early Homo erectus. It is possible that early examples are in one species group and later examples in the other.
Homo erectus lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. It was a successful species for a million and a half years. Early examples had a 900cc brain size on the average. The brain grew steadily during its reign. Toward the end its brain was almost the same size as modern man, at about 1200cc. The species definitely had speech. Erectus developed tools, weapons and fire and learned to cook his food. He traveled out of Africa into China and Southeast Asia and developed clothing for northern climates. He turned to hunting for his food. Only his head and face differed from modern man. Like habilis, the face had massive jaws with huge molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull. Though proportioned the same, he was sturdier in build and much stronger than the modern human.
Homo sapiens (archaic) provides the bridge between erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens during the period 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated. Skulls are more rounded and with smaller features. Molars and brow ridges are smaller. The skeleton shows a stronger build than modern human but was well proportioned.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis lived in Europe and the Mideast between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was of the same species and disappeared into the H.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an entirely different species and did not merge into the H. sapiens sapiens gene pool. Brain sizes averaged larger than modern man at about 1450cc but the head was shaped differently, being longer and lower than modern man. His nose was large and was different from modern man in structure. He was a massive man at about 5'6" tall with an extremely heavy skeleton that showed attachments for massive muscles. He was far stronger than modern man. His jaw was massive and he had a receding forehead, like erectus.
Homo sapiens sapiens first appeared about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.
[Edited 10/15/2008 8:52:10 PM ]
|
| 10/15/2008 9:29:04 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
+
Are those numbers universally accepted?
Like 1+1=2?
|
| 10/15/2008 9:32:06 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
drpepperz
Lafayette, LA
age: 33
|
Let me guess. You think the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old.
[Edited 10/15/2008 9:32:43 PM ]
|
| 10/15/2008 9:37:44 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
freethinker2112
Bentonville, AR
age: 43
|
+
Are those numbers universally accepted?
Like 1+1=2?
wow good responce, for someone that didnt read it and responded anyway.
And no it's not your 1+1= god jesus wizard man math, it's real science.
|
| 10/15/2008 9:54:24 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Freethinker, can you give us the url to your friend's evolution blog?
Thanks,
Oceans
|
| 10/15/2008 10:09:14 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
+
I thought real science, had universally accepted numbers.
Isn't 1+1=2, more accepted than the theory of evolution?
[Edited 10/15/2008 10:09:55 PM ]
|
| 10/15/2008 10:25:26 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
madrcat
Freeport, IL
age: 54
|
Burnkitty- you're right. There are only two numbers that matter however. 1 and 0. If you can master them you have figured out the yin and yang of the universe. All other numbers, real and imaginary are a derivative of those two IMO.
And again, people keep thinking of numbers and life as linear. Why? Right now we have the cosmologists proposal of an ever expanding Universe, and then the realization that while everything expands, it also collapses infinitem. SO how can we have infinite expansion and infinite regression at the same time? Perhaps we live in a spiral, or as you say a spiral cone? Perhaps the quantum strings comprising that cone are not out of our reach, just out of our view? We are but a grain of sand on a cosmological beach.
[Edited 10/15/2008 10:26:58 PM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 4:12:00 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 35
|
There seems to be some confusion of math and scientific theory as being one and the same. Though one may use certain aspects of math as a tool to give theories a trial of data, both of these retain their own distinctiveness. Science has four rules. They do not vary. Not for preference nor emotional response. They are thus...
1. A theory is created, based off of a hypothesis, formed from an observation.
2. Using various trials of measurement and data gathering, science must try to disprove its' own theory. This is to find where the theory is weakest.
3. Upon finding the weakest variable, the theory is refined. See step one.
As we can see, the process of the theory is in constant flux. It is because of this we then must observe the fourth rule which makes science what it is. This is also the rule I find to be the most misunderstood.
4. THEORIES NEVER BECOME FACTS.
With these rules, science is able to maintain its ability to adapt to new findings. Any theory, even the most widely accepted, can suddenly become discredited on the finding of new information. Now sometimes theories can become a law, but science laws are only as good as the theory which backs it. There are no "science facts" as it were. When one asks a scientist how time is effected by gravity, the answer is "I don't know. Here's the working theory, and here's the data we have at present." The introduction of evolution into the thread seems to be modivated by religious preference without knowing the four rules as they stand. Remember that science does not say that there is no god, or multiple gods, or some other force at work in the known universe. Science merely states that there are some observations made and findings collected. A theory is just that. Take it as you will. However I see no "chaos" in advancing any individual theory which follows these rules.
|
| 10/16/2008 8:17:22 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
I am more of the opinion than before that the 'infinity' questions I posed earlier may meet Burnkitty's challenges.
I take his challenge literally: is there anything that we cannot apply numbers to.
Yes, Infinity is an immensely useful mathematical item, but is it a true number, an integer?
When we cannot specify what half infinity is, we are in trouble.
I offer these items for your consideration:
1. Pi. A never-completed number. If I ask you waht the ratio of the diameter to the circumference is, can you give me a number for it? I know, you can give me a fraction...but is that the same as a number? When you pultiply something by Pi, we use an approximation of the number. You have to choose to how many decimal points you want go. You make a pragmatic decision -- but one that is, numerically, arbitrary.
2. We often use notation to mean 'fill in the blanks' because we can't specify the needed number. For example we say "x to the Nth power" without specifying what N is. We use "..." to mean 'and so on and so forth', without filling in the blanks.
3. Our quadratic equations are non-terminating. Whereas we realize that Xeno's paradox is more a matter of language (which draws us away from paying attention to the time/speed element), quadratic equations are the way we deal with things that cannot be given a specific number.
Ok, friends! I await your counter-arguments.
Of course, I am still thinking of my larger argument -- existence proofs -- but would like to examine the above cases, and dispose of them first if they don't meet Burnkitty's challenge.
Oceans
|
| 10/16/2008 9:27:07 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
1. Pi is a finite number children have memorized the complete string.
2. the algebraic variable is part of a numeric equation that when solved will be a number.
3. ...
I won't hog all the fun... leave something for someone else to shoot down.
|
| 10/16/2008 9:47:01 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
Burnkitty: THEORIES NEVER BECOME FACTS.
If science agrees with me, why would anybody try to dispute my statement that, The theory of evolution is not a fact, in the name of science?
Burnkitty:
Remember that science does not say that there is no god, or multiple gods, or some other force at work in the known universe.
Again I agree, I have no problem with science, or scientific method.
Only with people that try to claim science proves there is no GOD.
Or, theories are facts.
So I have not said anything a scientist should disagree with.
I believe The Bible, when it says GOD made the world in 6 days.
And when it says,
2PE 3:8 ... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And,
PSA 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
So here is the problem, I hear that the Bible cannot be right, because science has proven that the earth is millions, or billions of years old, not thousands.
I hear that science deals with facts, and is proven by scientific method.
Science is verified by data, measurements, numbers that can be checked, and reproduced, etc.
I hear that this is why science is superior to my superstitious religion.
So I ask for the numbers that prove my Bible wrong, and I get...
Oceans:
3. Our quadratic equations are non-terminating. Whereas we realize that Xeno's paradox is more a matter of language (which draws us away from paying attention to the time/speed element), quadratic equations are the way we deal with things that cannot be given a specific number.
How is that really different from this...?
I believe The Bible, when it says GOD made the world in 6 days.
And when it says,
2PE 3:8 ... that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And,
PSA 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
My claim that, The theory of evolution is not a fact; is scientifically sound.
[Edited 10/16/2008 9:56:25 AM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 9:56:48 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
He made it in six days or 6000 years.
the Adam lived to be 930 years old.. then... then... then... etc.
the Noah was 960 years old.
the Moses wrote the bible 3500 yrs ago.
if you add up the lineage and compare it to the sediment levels in the ocean... or the depth of dust on the moon you have an EXACT corresponding set of numbers... I am sure that is just coincedence.
why accept scientific deduction because they add up and not accept biblical addition.
carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic... because it incorrectly assumes radiation decay is a constant... when in reality it is a variable.
|
| 10/16/2008 10:02:36 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
He made it in six days or 6000 years.
the Adam lived to be 930 years old.. then... then... then... etc.
the Noah was 960 years old.
the Moses wrote the bible 3500 yrs ago.
if you add up the lineage and compare it to the sediment levels in the ocean... or the depth of dust on the moon you have an EXACT corresponding set of numbers... I am sure that is just coincedence.
why accept scientific deduction because they add up and not accept biblical addition.
carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic... because it incorrectly assumes radiation decay is a constant... when in reality it is a variable.
I tend to agree with those numbers.
For the same reasons.
Since science has no real rebuttal.
3. Our quadratic equations are non-terminating. Whereas we realize that Xeno's paradox is more a matter of language (which draws us away from paying attention to the time/speed element), quadratic equations are the way we deal with things that cannot be given a specific number.
[Edited 10/16/2008 10:05:25 AM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 10:52:30 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
Pi is not known. It has been calculated to 50 billion places, and does not even then terminate.
Hoffman, THE MAN WHO LOVED ONLY NUMBERS, p. 229.
|
| 10/16/2008 10:56:42 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
+
Exactly.
|
| 10/16/2008 11:44:33 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
madrcat
Freeport, IL
age: 54
|
All right, you're all losing it here. If I recall Burnkitty's Thread was about the use of numbers, to which the debate went to infinity and quadratics.
So within that context of numbers, I pose to you all- why are you concerned with whether God/god exists or does not within a number system? Can he not be a part of, or absent from it, without the same system still staying intact?
Or in other words, does God/god's existence predetermine the existence of real and imaginary numbers? (Hint- Stephan Hawking doesn't think so...)
|
| 10/16/2008 12:18:44 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
madrcat:
All right, you're all losing it here. If I recall Burnkitty's Thread was about the use of numbers, to which the debate went to infinity and quadratics.
So within that context of numbers, I pose to you all- why are you concerned with whether God/god exists or does not within a number system?
Burnkitty:
My challenge to you is to show me something in our physical universe that numbers cannot be attributed to. Show me “not order” if you can…
I'm not trying to talk about GOD.
I was comparing sources, not trying to establish GOD's existence.
Remember?
So I ask for the numbers that prove my Bible wrong, and I get...
Oceans:
3. Our quadratic equations are non-terminating. Whereas we realize that Xeno's paradox is more a matter of language (which draws us away from paying attention to the time/speed element), quadratic equations are the way we deal with things that cannot be given a specific number.
I am concerned about whether or not evolution exists within a number system.
Not GOD.
Do you recall this?
Some people say that the theory evolution explains something in our physical universe.
I disagree.
Does anybody have numbers on that?
Or is it chaos?
As it worked out, Seemonkey brought out numbers that showed order to the universe.
He made it in six days or 6000 years.
the Adam lived to be 930 years old.. then... then... then... etc.
the Noah was 960 years old.
the Moses wrote the bible 3500 yrs ago.
if you add up the lineage and compare it to the sediment levels in the ocean... or the depth of dust on the moon you have an EXACT corresponding set of numbers... I am sure that is just coincedence.
why accept scientific deduction because they add up and not accept biblical addition.
carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic... because it incorrectly assumes radiation decay is a constant... when in reality it is a variable.
Which agrees with this..
Burnkitty;
The speed of the moon and earth rotating around one another, while rotating around the sun, while rotating around our galactic central point, are all just a series of numbers upon numbers. I have dubbed this the Universal Equation, from which nothing is exempt.
We began by talking about the "not order" of evolution, and ended up on the order of creation.
That's just the way it adds up.
|
| 10/16/2008 4:35:35 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
gittenby
Attica, OH
age: 65
|
My challenge to you is to show me something in our physical universe that numbers cannot be attributed to. Show me “not order” if you can…
The human thought process. You have only to read this forum to see "not order".
[Edited 10/16/2008 4:41:33 PM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 6:36:37 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
"""carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic.."""
that will come as a surprise to thousands of people that use it and can otherwise verify it's results.
the 6 day biblical creation can be viewed as true only if viewed from the center of the universe...
|
| 10/16/2008 7:12:01 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
"""carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic.."""
that will come as a surprise to thousands of people that use it and can otherwise verify it's results.
the 6 day biblical creation can be viewed as true only if viewed from the center of the universe...
If radio carbon dating is accurate, there should be a consensus among evolutionists.
All the dates should be agreed upon.
But when I did a post on Evolution, the dates that came in were far ranging.
From many seemingly, reputable sources.
It is flawed.
The six day Biblical creation, was described from the center of the universe.
|
| 10/16/2008 8:01:41 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
See Monkey. Why do you say that the decay rate of carbon radiation is variable enough to invalidate its use for time-line determination? or are you saying something else?
Sorry for the digression, OP.
[Edited 10/16/2008 8:03:24 PM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 11:30:03 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
testing of a single object can yield different age results.
much like a radar gun pointed at a forest will produce a speed violation... yet we know the trees aren't moving.
objects with a known age have tested older and younger.
it was determined that other interactions can cause the decay rates to speed up or slow down... thus producing the false readings.
God made the world in 6000 years and then you must add the ages of people who lived after that creation.
from adam to noah to moses and modern day..
that total excedes 6000 years if you think about it.
and the best physical evidence that doesn't have a flaw is rivers worldwide... they all empty into the worlds oceans... the sedimentary rate of deposit build up in the ocean is easily determined... if the rivers have been flowing on earth for 4 billion years the the sediment should be 7 miles deep.
that is impossible because oceans aren't that deep and the whole planet would be a land mass.. silty or swampy but the oceans would be filled to capacity.
we have to drudge many riverways to keep them deep enough for vessels to navigate.
imagine if man didn't clear them.
and NASA calculated the depth of moon dust to be several feet... it turned out to be minimal.
suggesting a young earth and moon and universe.
from many angles young earth is a valid theory... evolutionists fight it tooth and nail because it conflicts with their theory.
as with all these conjectures.. only time will tell who was right... or if anyone was.
[Edited 10/16/2008 11:32:20 PM ]
|
| 10/16/2008 11:37:45 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
madrcat
Freeport, IL
age: 54
|
seemonkey-
I'm not sure all your asumptions are correct, although I will concede that carbon dating has been proven to be flawed. I believe they now actually make comparisons based off of some "golden sample they have".
But for some of the other thoughts on rivers and sediment. How much of that silt etc would vary due to climatic changes such as ice ages, large floods, meteor impacts etc? Similar to the forest that renews itself after a fire, couldn't the earth also perform the same functions to refresh, or make itself appear younger than it really is? IDK- just another way to ponder it?
|
| 10/16/2008 11:54:25 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
mad,
certainly... that is why I threw in the moon dust fact.
maybe it is a conspiracy the celestial bodies have all joined in to throw us off the scent.
|
| 10/20/2008 8:57:41 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
burnkitty
Fayetteville, AR
age: 35
|
|
| 10/20/2008 10:21:03 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
seemonkey
Big Pine, CA
age: 47
|
"Complicating things further, various plants have differing abilities to exclude significant proportions of the C-14 in their intake. This varies with environmental conditions as well. The varying rates at which C-14 is excluded in plants also means that the apparent age of a living animal may be affected by an animals diet. An animal that ingested plants with relatively low C-14 proportions would be dated older than their true age.
Attempts are often made to index C-14 proportions using samples of know age. While this may be useful to eliminate the uncertainty of atmospheric proportions of C-14, it does not compensate for local conditions such as which plant species are in the diet. The uncertainty in the measurement leads some to conclude that the method is far less predictive of age than is commonly supposed, especially for older samples."
from:
www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm
I give people way to much credit and expect they already know.
my bad.
this link is what is being taught to students in this field.
and explains the assumptions involved in carbon dating.
[Edited 10/20/2008 10:24:06 PM ]
|
| 10/21/2008 9:49:43 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
see, """carbon dating has been proven a flawed technic.."""
that will come as a surprise to thousands of people that use it and can otherwise verify it's results.
That was not a good response from me.....i was thinking you meant that "flawed" was a worthless technique...that is what i responded to.
Of course, everything has it's limits of use and accuracy to consider...When an educated person uses carbon dating, they are aware of those limits and accuracy..carbon dating is a tool that is used to validate other information and results of other tests or observations,at best...If used alone, the limits and accuracy of it's results are usually posted.I don't know how many samples they test if they have enough for more than one test, but since it does deal with so many variables i suspect that all of those are factored in as best as they can.
The real problem is when those who have an agenda, for or against the results of a test, use distorted arguments or misinformation to push that agenda.
But carbon dating testing, being a scientific tool, is automatically under review, and by those most knowledgeable to critique the test and results.
|
| 10/21/2008 10:14:04 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
mtn_man_vail
Eagle, CO
age: 47
|
I was going to ask why this is in the Religion forums, and then i re-called what i have been telling people who use the term and want to staple it on christains heads.
A religion is : A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
The claim that every thing in the universe can be broken down into numbers is still just a claim.
There will never be any 100% truths until we start using 100% of our brain capacity.
|
| 10/21/2008 10:23:22 AM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
lovesgod57
Waukegan, IL
age: 53
|
Skunk, the basis of science is to use logic and reasoning. Seemonkey presented valid points when you use both. The problem with using devices for measurements is that they have to be calibrated with something known as constant. Scientist don't really know how old the universe is. Their calibrations are based on assumptions and suppositions. Then you add logic into the mix and now you have a whole new set of values. Would it be so farfetch to calibrate instruments to a known value? Biblical accounts?
It has been presented that the Big Bang only took 3 seconds to disperse the uninverse and 3 mins to cool down. If you take in concideration the speed of light, rotational effects, and the loss of mass in celestrial bodies, it may seem like the universe is expanding. When in reality maybe it is shrinking, collapsing on itself due the gravitation effects of the black hole in the center.
Nothing is constant, and it is always the variables that lead many astray. There is a great fear in science to put ones name to a discovery because if proven wrong it could inevitably reduce one to oblivion.
[Edited 10/21/2008 10:31:36 AM ]
|
| 10/21/2008 2:03:15 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
Here is on of our local scientists.
He ties in the numbers real good.
|
| 10/21/2008 2:50:30 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
1haoleboy
Hilo, HI
age: 50
|
Here is on of our local scientists.
He ties in the numbers real good.
Try fast forwarding to 2:30
[Edited 10/21/2008 2:51:55 PM ]
|
| 10/21/2008 3:24:42 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
oceans5555
Chevy Chase, MD
age: 67
|
To pick back to one of See Monkey's points:
Yes, rivers dump sediment into the oceans, but remember too that land is rising. The Himalayas and the Rockies, for example, are slowly rising. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some rough equivalency between the sedimentation rate, and the rate of land mass rising. After all, the continents and oceans are dynamic and the land masses 'float' upon molten materials. Like a seesaw, it would make sense that they should be in rough equilibria.
Does anyone have a sense of the land area of Pangeia, compared to the total land area now in existence? This would give us a good sense of whether such a balance persists over time.
And with regard to carbon-dating: Monkay, I don't think 'flaw' is the right way to describe it. I see it as a technique that does require skill and attention. With that, how much is the error factor likely to be with carbon-dating?
Oceans
|
| 10/21/2008 4:05:19 PM |
A Complex Matter Of Numerical Order... |
|
skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 91
|
"""Would it be so farfetch to calibrate instruments to a known value? Biblical accounts? """
Mythology is not a known value!...Ideological superstition could only be compared to science by those ignorant of scientific method.
Your post was nonsense, much like the other posts of "believers" who pretend to know things outside of their area of expertise, organized, ignorant, superstitious nonsense.
|