I like the idea in punos' second post. — Patterner

:smile: :up:

If I could makes any one book required reading for everyone, it would probably be Dune. — Patterner

If I could ever get around to it, i definitely would. I just find it difficult to read fiction.

I never read the Dune book or books, but i do have a very soft spot for the old Dune movie which i saw as a child.

Dogs seem to be able to suppress desires -- like not lunging forward to grab the treat dangling in front of it until an OK is registered. — BC

Perhaps this feature is an emergent property facilitated by the complexity of the neocortex in mammalian brains. The difference between dogs and humans in this regard would probably be an issue of degree.

Difficulty to test it. If I know I'm on the wrong screen, I don't commit myself in the first place. — Patterner

Then i would say that the aim would be to always know what screen you're on. This ability to interrupt high level reflexes is probably uniquely human.

I'm reminded of the Gom Jabbar test in Dune:

I'm also sure you can train yourself to be more conscious about taping that icon. It's probably a good idea to at least run that experiment on yourself. See how it goes, and see what you learn.

I think you are right. I also thought that it may be that the learned reflex can be buffered until the conscious thought to execute releases it, and it may come in two parts where one set of muscles fires according to one part of his perception of the ball, and then the second set fires according to another part of his perception of the ball fractions of a second apart. I assume it takes practice to get very good at that.

I wonder what happens when a batter tries to check his swing. — Patterner

I think what the batter is doing is based on how the ball looks to him as it's traveling towards him. He has learned to anticipate the future position of the ball when it reaches the optimal distance for hitting it, by virtue of training and practice. There is probably an initial period where there is some very short time to think before committing to any nerve transmissions.

In my thinking, the reason what you described happens is because if your brain sends a nerve signal to your hand or finger to touch the icon, by the time you have time to think and send a nerve signal to correct the first one, the first signal has already arrived and executed the action. All nerve signals down that specific nerve path propagate at the same speed, and thus can't outrun prior signals. It appears from what i can find that the inability to cancel or stop a nerve impulse after it has been transmitted is known as the "final common path" principle or the "point of no return" in neurophysiology.

I don't know, but maybe this: ballistic movement

Amazing skill, just wow.

DJ Q-Bert Faderless Scratching:

oops...

Two of my favorite turntablist DJs from back in the day.

Dj-Qbert @ The Summit [1998]


Qbert and D-Styles Q&A


D-STYLES IDA 2018 SHOWCASE

I get the point.

Just going to place this right here and slowly walk away:

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective? — Truth Seeker

While our conscious experience of the present moment is inherently subjective, there exists an objective present reality that underlies and gives rise to these subjective experiences. The objective present encompasses the totality of all physical states and interactions occurring in the universe at any given instant, governed by the laws of physics. In contrast, the subjective present refers to the physiological states and interactions within an individual, governed by biological and psychological laws.

This objective present reality exists independently of any observer's perception. Objectivity implies the ability for multiple observers to independently verify phenomena, despite subjective means of perception. Phenomena like the passage of time, existence of space, and presence of matter are considered objective, as they can be independently verified.

Compared to block theories of time positing the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future, the concept of an objective present reality underlying subjective experiences is more parsimonious and aligned with our lived experiences. It acknowledges the objective reality of the present while recognizing the inherently subjective nature of conscious experiences, without requiring the metaphysical assumption of a pre-existing block of spacetime containing all temporal moments.

Block theories of time, which posit that past, present, and future exist simultaneously as an unchanging 4-dimensional block, serve as useful conceptual models. However, they may not accurately depict time's fundamental metaphysical reality. The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. Our sense of the past stems from memory representations, and similarly, our notion of the future arises from imaginative faculties extrapolating potential states based on current knowledge, without objective existence until actualized.

The apparent persistence of past and future is an illusion created by the continuity of conscious experience. As conceived, the past and future are mental reconstructions and projections rather than objectively existing realms within reality's fabric.

Essentially, while valuable conceptual tools, block theories may reflect human cognitive tendencies to construct temporal narratives more than time's underlying metaphysical nature.

Anyhow, when we look at what happens when we approach 0/0 an interesting thing occurs. If we start with one as the numerator, and keep reducing the numerator towards zero, our number gets closer and closer to 0. On the flip side, when we keep reducing the denominator our result will tend towards the infinite. If you reduce both equally you get something like:

1/1 = 1
0.1/0.1 = 1
0.01/0.01 = 1
0.000....1 / 0.000...1 = 1 — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've noticed this pattern as well. To truly comprehend its significance, we should probably first determine what the denominator and numerator represent. Do both numbers refer to space, energy, or something else entirely? Does the denominator signify space while the numerator represents energy, or is it the other way around? What is the underlying logic behind these ratios? What emergent qualities do they manifest? What are your thoughts in this regard?

In my view, the universe operates fundamentally on binary or 'balanced ternary' value representations. Any mathematical framework claiming to represent quantum-level phenomena must conform to these binary representations. Furthermore, i believe that mathematical operators such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are contingent and emergent upon logic (Logos).

From an initial state of 0, what force can possibly alter the 0 quantum state to a non-zero state, and which non-zero state can it assume? Can it take on any arbitrary value, or is it constrained to a single or a set of values? Which ones and why? I can for example add 1, but whence does that 1 originate? I can subtract 1, but what does 1 signify, and how did i conceive the idea of "1" if the universe initially contained only 0?

My evolving answer to this conundrum is the quantum bitwise unitary logical operator NOT (perhaps call it "QNOT"). I have found that NOT is the sole operation in all of mathematics and logic that can produce a truth value from a null state, and this truth value is represented by us as the absolute number value 1. However, the universe represents it as, for instance, a positron (+1) along with an electron (-1).

From the primordial perspective, if 0 represents 'emptiness', then 1 is 'fullness' (its opposite). The quality of fullness encompasses the entire infinite abstract or latent space of 0 as a singular entity, a "self-singularity". This is probably where the idea of "The One", "the One God", or "The All" originates from; not the first quality in the universe, but the first quality to emerge. It is the result of the first fundamental self-interaction between NOT and 0 in the point field.

A (maybe too simplistic) way to think of this might be "the amount of nothing is no space." No nothing is something, but it's a sheer nothing that, occupying no space, can't vary along any dimension, making it contentless. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The word "contentless" is interesting because it makes me think of "content" in the sense of when someone is "content" or "not content". A person who is content has no urge or need to do anything, but if one is not content, then an urge arises to take some form of action. The prime mover performing the prime movement?

The fact that -1+1=0 and 0=-1+1 reveals to me that zero possesses an internal structure. There is a binary aspect to 0 or "nothing", and this binary aspect is tied in to the binary quality of opposition and complementarity. Just as 0 = (-1, +1), the logical operator NOT can be expressed as a binary pair (AND, OR). AND is associated with addition (+), while OR is associated with subtraction (-).

0 = (-1 AND +1)
NOT = (-1 OR +1) --> (if 0 then -1 AND +1)

Interestingly, the 3 fundamental values (0, -1, +1) and the 3 fundamental logical operators (NOT, AND, OR) resemble a kind of trinity. This is possibly the origin of the triune concept found in certain religious and philosophical traditions, such as the concept of the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

The stuff about the Riemann sphere reminds me of the qubit or the bloch sphere. Worth looking into. Thanks, i might ask you more about it later. You've provided me with a lot of good information, and it'll probably take me a little time to mentally digest it.

Thanks again. :up:

Yes (and as a conceptual analogue for Democritus-Epicurus' void), though I interpret the concept as temporal only and not, like Spinoza, also as eternal (i.e. unchanging, static). — 180 Proof

Interesting, i think similarly (time has primacy over space) that the 0-dimensional point is the void, but not a volumetric one. I didn't get into it in this paper, but i also interpret or view the primordial void as having a more fundamental kind of time without an arrow (i call it 0th order time). This kind of primordial arrowless time is only concerned with continuity of states or moments (temporal momentum), and this kind of time could never have had a beginning and cannot ever have an end. It operates like a copy, and paste back onto itself function producing the effect of self continuity (self-interaction). It is because of this arrowless time that the capacity for something, or anything to happen at all becomes possible. All arrows of time begin and end, but not time itself.

Additionally, activity within the 0-dimensional point is expressed as a kind of spin (intrinsic angular momentum or quantum spin) that every particle partakes in. A particle's quantum spin stems from its temporal continuity at the 0th dimension, and it's what allows the particle to literally exist in time. Spin is the simplest most fundamental movement a 0-dimensional point can make.

A lot of these ideas i have are very difficult for me to get out in words. I know what i want to say, but the complexity gets in the way of saying it. Hopefully, i can get a handle on it someday.

Very interesting, and thank you.

A couple more things i could say:

A core belief of mine is that the totality of the universe is mathematical and computational in nature. The mathematical part of the universe is expressed either as a single 0-dimensional point or as a plurality of 0-dimensional points resembling a 0+n dimensional number field (quantum field). Each point in the field represents a number value initially set to 0. The operational quality of the field is negation at every point constantly (probably at the speed of light) at every opportunity whenever this field point (Planck volume) is found to be at 0, and only then. The negating operation or logical quality of the field does not necessarily negate in the traditional sense, but what it does is decay, split, or decompose the 0-point field.

For me, abstract number (value) is the primordial substance, and abstract logic is the primordial intrinsic processor of the substance. The primordial substance begins at a value of 0, and the primordial operator is logical NOT or negation, and they both come together as a single package, like the chicken and the egg.

The way that negation works in my framework is not that it magically inverts something into its opposite, but that mathematically it decomposes the 0 point into antiparticle pairs. I have not found an officially recognized operator, mathematical or logical, that decomposes a 0 into -1 and +1. The normal way of using the logical NOT operator is (NOT 0 = 1, or NOT 1 = 0), but what I am saying is that there needs to be a version of the NOT operator that: (NOT 0 = -1, +1), (NOT -1 = no effect, NOT +1 = no effect). Logical AND and OR operators function mostly with charged (symmetry broken) particles and work towards reunification, the opposite of what NOT does. The universe represents numbers within and to itself as fundamental particles and represents its logic as physical force (fundamental forces). If the universe itself were a mind, then these would be its qualia.

Thank you Proof! Your comment is helpful. Regarding the mystical aspect, when you really think about it, physics at its foundation appears quite mystical. Part of the point is indeed to reinterpret mystical terms within a more scientific, rational, or mathematical framework.

Also, Spinoza did not have access to any of our modern knowledge, such as quantum mechanics. It's probably a good idea to reinterpret the ideas of old philosophers in light of modern knowledge to uncover new insights impossible or improbable in earlier times. I'm sure this has been done to some degree by someone, somewhere.

I'll conduct a comparative study of his ideas and mine on this matter. I appreciate you pointing it out. I'm curious to know if you agree with or subscribe to Spinoza's concept of natura naturans?

Ok, but what do you consider the value of the initial unknown variable 'A' to be? Is it 0 or is it some other initial value?

The ground is considered zero at every and any point you select on the ground line or level, and the rest of the terrain is measured relative to your selected point. To select a value for that point other than zero is arbitrary, but not necessarily wrong mathematically speaking.

The ground is zero because it is the reference point. Think "sea level", or think "neutral"; not a hole and not a mound. The hole is -1 because the hole was made by removing +1 of dirt. Filling in the hole with +1 of dirt brings it back to its original value, but filling it in with +2 creates a mound of +1. You would need to dig another hole from somewhere else to add the extra +1 to the original hole, or it would break conservation.

It appears that you contradicted yourself here:

hole = -1 (if the hole is -1, then it would take +2 to become 1, not just +1)
excavated dirt = +1 (not enough to fill the hole then, which doesn't make sense since removing this value caused the hole to be) — Echogem222

So to fill the hole, you would just need +1. — Echogem222

Let's say that the ground had the value of 75 mounds of dirt before any dirt was removed from it, but when the hole was made due to dirt being removed, the ground lost a value of 1, hence becoming 74. — Echogem222

What would you do if you didn't know that the ground had a value of 75 mounds, but you can still dig up +1 of dirt and make a hole? What does the math look like then?

If 0 is nothing then is -7 more nothing than 0? Is -7 something or nothing?

A hole is defined by its boundary and volume. A hole does not exist on its own, and must be surrounded or constrained by something to fulfill its definition of a hole. A hole is not a non-value, but a negative value.

Consider a flat ground of dirt, and you decide to take a shovel and dig a hole in the dirt. What you have done is taken the equilibrium of the flat ground and disrupted it by displacing a certain amount of dirt from a certain location onto another location. The dirt you excavated has a positive value, and the hole you left behind has an opposite and equal negative value. If you take the excavated dirt and place it back in the hole, you now have restored the equilibrium of the ground back to zero.

ground = 0
hole = -1
excavated dirt = +1

Happy to know that there are members who listen to Andalusian nanas. Hespèrion is a fantastic group, and Jordi Savall is a master. They also have interesting songs from the Balkans. :up: — javi2541997

I agree, and i'm glad to know we share a common point of resonance. :smile: :up:

Hespèrion XXI - Nana Andaluza Duerme Mi Niña


Hespèrion XXI - La Guirnalda de Rosas una Matica de Ruda

All creation or creativity involves assembling elements in novel configurations. Now, how to do it well? Some suggestions:

Consider looking to nature, and observe her creative process, where existing elements are amalgamated, fused, or 'accreted' to form new entities such as atoms, stars, planets, molecules, cells, etc. Similarly, human creativity follows this pattern, albeit with thoughts as the building blocks that are 'accreted' together to generate innovative ideas and creations.

Long ago, i came across a story about an alchemist who employed a creativity technique consisting of two phases. The initial stage, was the absorption phase, and it involved the alchemist immersing himself entirely in his chosen subject. This entailed extensive reading and engaging with individuals possessing knowledge or insights related to his area of interest. This immersive phase typically lasted several months. The subsequent phase involved deep contemplation, reflection, and experimentation, during which the alchemist meticulously pondered all the information gathered during the absorption phase. It was within this contemplative stage that he purportedly experienced moments of creative inspiration and innovation.

Furthermore, adopt a multidisciplinary approach. Explore how seemingly unrelated concepts can intertwine with your creative pursuits. Embracing diverse perspectives and fields of study can often lead to unique and innovative solutions.

Most importantly have fun with it. Play with ideas as a child plays with toys, and new things will begin to occur to you. Also, always listen to your intuition, and don't let anyone shutdown your intuition; learn to listen to it closely and carefully.

Faith and reason are in complete opposition. One believes what it wants, and the other believes what it must. It is like having two masters with opposite minds, so one must always betray one to serve the other at any given time. The basis for faith is, at a minimum, desire or emotion and, at most, dogma. The basis for reason is, at a minimum, evidence and, at most, proof.

Jeremiah 17:9
"The heart is deceitful above all things"

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

"Man prefers to believe what man prefers to be true." - Sir Francis Bacon

Thank you, "Bohren & Der Club Of Gore - Maximum Black" has now been added to my collection.

Matthew Halsall - Fletcher Moss Park

Matthew Halsall and The Gondwana Orchestra - Journey in Satchidananda


Matthew Halsall - Daan Park


Matthew Halsall - Samatha (Poetree Remix)


Matthew Halsall and The Gondwana Orchestra - Kiyomizu-Dera

I'm sorry to say that the concept of "natural numbers" (counting numbers) should be abolished. It is logically inconsistent and causes confusion as to the true nature of number.

"The answer to the ultimate question is..........................42." — Fire Ologist

Perhaps the question to the ultimate answer is ..................... 2 × 3 × 7 = ?

Let me provide another, but different illustration that shows why counting and even numbers themselves begin at 0. Consider the two following number sequences and their logical progression:

Sequence A:
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Sequence B:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Questions:
Which one of the above number sequences is correct, and which one is incorrect, and why?
What numbers are missing and why?
What is the relationship of the number 10 to the number 0?

programmatically in Python:

rocks = 0 # beginning at 0
while rocks < 2:
rocks += 1
print(rocks)

output = [1, 2] # correct output


rocks = 1 # beginning at 1
while rocks < 2:
rocks += 1
print(rocks)

output = [2] # incorrect output — punos


Well, what I see here is that you are saying 1+1 is not 2. So I don't know where you're coming from. — Zolenskify

In the first example, since it is starting from a value of 0, it enters the counting loop one time, adding 1 to 0 (0+1=1). Then it enters the loop again and adds 1 a second time to the last value result [1], updating the count result to [2]. This is why the first example has an output of two numbers [1, 2], because it counted twice.

In the second counting loop example, since the starting value is already 1 before the first count, the loop simply counts 1 time, resulting in one count of [2]. This loop added 1 to 1 (1+1=2), resulting in a value of [2]. That is why you only see one number as the output result [2], because it only counted one time.

In both cases, 1 + 1 = 2, but what you are neglecting to see is that the true operation was 0 + 1 = 1 (first count), and 1 + 1 = 2 (second count).

I'm coming from 0. That's where i'm coming from.

But I want to know what you think. — Zolenskify

I believe that is what i've been doing.

I do not follow how this differs from my example, only that you now add the condition that the beginning of the day is 0. — Zolenskify

This is your example:
"I pick up a rock, I have one rock. Pick up another, have two. Drop them, have none. Only started counting rocks when I picked up the first one. So, numbers start at one."

I would restate your example as:
"I have zero rocks, I pick up a rock, I have one rock. Pick up another, have two. Drop one and I have one, drop that one and I have zero, right back where I started."

But an interval of time is always passing, and can't really be counted in terms of starting and stopping. — Zolenskify

It is not time itself that stops or starts; it is you who starts counting and then stops. You are not trying to count all of time, which is infinite and thus impossible, but just the duration (temporal space or distance) of some finite phenomena. A count result can be defined as how many 'times' (time) a single count was made. Counting is an activity, which means it has a temporal dimension.

A stopwatch can do this for practical reasons, but we are then changing what time means because we are now only looking at it in terms of evaluating some other dependent variable. — Zolenskify

I don't see how the meaning of time changes when we count cycles of time. What do you mean by dependent variable in this context?

Say that we are now counting these "spaces" instead of the rocks. That "space" just becomes the object we are counting. — Zolenskify

That is precisely what i am suggesting as a representational placeholder for any object being counted. It's not a rule, but i find that conceptualizing it this way affords me a more accurate way of understanding what is happening when counting happens. There is, in any way you think about it, a kind of separation between numbers, or if not, then we would not have numbers. I think it is a more rigorous way of thinking about numbers, anchoring the concept of numbers closer to our physical experience of the world in a spatial sense.

So swapping these two objects still allows for my argument to hold. Thank you for these thoughts. — Zolenskify

For your argument to hold i believe it needs to start from 0 in order for the first count to be 1.

You're welcome, and thank you as well for your thoughts.