Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
by James S Saint » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:43 pm nameta9 wrote:James S Saint wrote:The actual first principle(s) never change and never will.
There are an infinite number of First Principles and No First principles at the same time.
What "first principle" specified that conclusion?
Whatever it was, it was false.
Why do you think that first principles are infinite in number?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony 
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.
The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.
You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.
Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.
The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.
The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.
You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.
Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.
The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
- James S Saint
- ILP Legend
- Posts: 13257
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:05 pm
Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
by nameta9 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:58 am
Infinite number of new Processors interacting
with new Event Sets and hence Experience Sets and hence discovering
Infinite number of "New Laws of Physics", hence Infinite Number of First
Principles ...
From:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177834
Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?
The unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas), the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision is no longer "unreasonable".
So what scientists do is confuse technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and especially mathematical models: what came first the technological machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and functions according to how we interact with reality.
SO in essence, there is no "unreasonable precision" of mathematics to reality, but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?
Matter is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced systems carving their function out of reality, by force.
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.
The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.
When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.
So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...
and
"how is the study of the bio considered technology??"
1) Biology is not even a science, it is based on studying a completely arbitrary, make believe fluke of a contraption Matter decided to produce through a completely fake, artificial, make believe process of Natural Evolution (a fancy way to simply say the Ball of Matter that is the Earth decided to play with itself and created (nay invented, just because, because Matter was "bored") Man Brains) with no necessity or goal in mind, no need for Matter to wake up and make believe that it is alive, it should have stayed in bed and sleep instead, where its "Natural" place in the universe is: in other words, Matter and Mass Energy should just stop fooling around with itself creating contraptions that become alive and make believe that they are real when they are total lies and fake and inventions with no value whatsoever (see what happens when you don't believe in GOD anymore ?). Matter should be still, dead, should not be conscious or alive, should be blind, a void, empty, please give us back nothing, good old nothing forever, void, empty, please kill all possible life in the universe, stop this lie of Matter pretending to be alive, kill Nature...Thank You. You're Welcome.
2) The "science" of biology is 100 % based on Intentionalities of Use, of decisions and models and goals already assigned from the outset and only according to how it relates to pain/pleasure circuits, to how we can interact and manipulate matter accordingly, how we can devise new Information Relationships to achieve our satisfaction and such.
3) Since Physics and Mathematics (and the corollary logic, language, thought processes) are all based on reductionism, on precise patterns revealed, on precise mathematical or logical relationships discovered (but really invented, in a subtle way), but especially mathematical and therefore perceived as being so precise, and correct and incredible, and since from there on all of the other sciences build on top of Physics and Math and such, scientists conclude that there is something magical and mysterious in the way mathematics "describes" our state of affairs: nothing further from the truth, Matter is simply just talking to itself and making things up and lying to itself and inventing and creating virtualities (mental models and Intentionalities of Use) and such, all based on implied mental models and thought models and processes and therefore language, logic and mathematics, and looking at itself in the mirror and saying to itself, look how "precise" I am and such. Obviously this is the case of the Observer also being the Observed, the Processor also being the Information Item upon which the Processor is operating upon and such.
But to finally reveal how unprecise science really is, try to predict the exact next earthquake (and intensity and shape and such), try to predict the exact shape of the next cloud (mathematically, in millimeter terms, just like quantum electrodynamics predicts mass and charge and such of elementary particles, when it is really just predicting the huge precision of precision instruments set up to express mathematical relationships from the outset, the precision is already given since the machines are designed precisely and such), try to predict the exact shape and form of an ocean wave or the mountain shape, etc.
But the reason why you don't want to or "need to" predict the precision of those elements (try to predict the precise configuration of pebbles on a street and such) is because we don't need to do anything with it, it is outside of our usage (our function space), as a function for us to use, we can't do anything with that precision, hence it becomes irrelevant and not important but especially because we can't build any machine around that precision, we can't construct any technology or function around the precision of the exact shape of a cloud and such. So, as you see the Intentionality of Use creates the need for a Function and hence for a Machine, a Task, an Operation and hence the origin of the "Unreasonable Precision of Mathematics in Describing the World".
From:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177834
Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?
The unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas), the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision is no longer "unreasonable".
So what scientists do is confuse technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and especially mathematical models: what came first the technological machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and functions according to how we interact with reality.
SO in essence, there is no "unreasonable precision" of mathematics to reality, but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?
Matter is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced systems carving their function out of reality, by force.
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.
The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.
When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.
So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...
and
"how is the study of the bio considered technology??"
1) Biology is not even a science, it is based on studying a completely arbitrary, make believe fluke of a contraption Matter decided to produce through a completely fake, artificial, make believe process of Natural Evolution (a fancy way to simply say the Ball of Matter that is the Earth decided to play with itself and created (nay invented, just because, because Matter was "bored") Man Brains) with no necessity or goal in mind, no need for Matter to wake up and make believe that it is alive, it should have stayed in bed and sleep instead, where its "Natural" place in the universe is: in other words, Matter and Mass Energy should just stop fooling around with itself creating contraptions that become alive and make believe that they are real when they are total lies and fake and inventions with no value whatsoever (see what happens when you don't believe in GOD anymore ?). Matter should be still, dead, should not be conscious or alive, should be blind, a void, empty, please give us back nothing, good old nothing forever, void, empty, please kill all possible life in the universe, stop this lie of Matter pretending to be alive, kill Nature...Thank You. You're Welcome.
2) The "science" of biology is 100 % based on Intentionalities of Use, of decisions and models and goals already assigned from the outset and only according to how it relates to pain/pleasure circuits, to how we can interact and manipulate matter accordingly, how we can devise new Information Relationships to achieve our satisfaction and such.
3) Since Physics and Mathematics (and the corollary logic, language, thought processes) are all based on reductionism, on precise patterns revealed, on precise mathematical or logical relationships discovered (but really invented, in a subtle way), but especially mathematical and therefore perceived as being so precise, and correct and incredible, and since from there on all of the other sciences build on top of Physics and Math and such, scientists conclude that there is something magical and mysterious in the way mathematics "describes" our state of affairs: nothing further from the truth, Matter is simply just talking to itself and making things up and lying to itself and inventing and creating virtualities (mental models and Intentionalities of Use) and such, all based on implied mental models and thought models and processes and therefore language, logic and mathematics, and looking at itself in the mirror and saying to itself, look how "precise" I am and such. Obviously this is the case of the Observer also being the Observed, the Processor also being the Information Item upon which the Processor is operating upon and such.
But to finally reveal how unprecise science really is, try to predict the exact next earthquake (and intensity and shape and such), try to predict the exact shape of the next cloud (mathematically, in millimeter terms, just like quantum electrodynamics predicts mass and charge and such of elementary particles, when it is really just predicting the huge precision of precision instruments set up to express mathematical relationships from the outset, the precision is already given since the machines are designed precisely and such), try to predict the exact shape and form of an ocean wave or the mountain shape, etc.
But the reason why you don't want to or "need to" predict the precision of those elements (try to predict the precise configuration of pebbles on a street and such) is because we don't need to do anything with it, it is outside of our usage (our function space), as a function for us to use, we can't do anything with that precision, hence it becomes irrelevant and not important but especially because we can't build any machine around that precision, we can't construct any technology or function around the precision of the exact shape of a cloud and such. So, as you see the Intentionality of Use creates the need for a Function and hence for a Machine, a Task, an Operation and hence the origin of the "Unreasonable Precision of Mathematics in Describing the World".
- nameta9
- Philosopher
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 11:42 am
Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
by nameta9 » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:01 am
and from:
http://instantsingularity.blogspot.it/2 ... nship.html
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:52 pm
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.
The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.
When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.
So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...
TOBOR THE 8 MAN
http://instantsingularity.blogspot.it/2 ... nship.html
Re: Information Relationship
Postby nameta9 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:52 pm
At what point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science" so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or experience reference system, from some language construct, thought construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture, civilization, tribe.
The discrepancies: the three body problem has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms), the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise, non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect ? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ? can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state, it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness, Measurements and Observations are the Cure.
When I saw the first pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random, chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought, logic and our own schematics.
So, at what point does a technology become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology: and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to now...
TOBOR THE 8 MAN
No comments:
Post a Comment