|
0=1
Jul 12, 2021 21:17:25 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 12, 2021 21:17:25 GMT
1. You have 1 line.
2. This line is divided by a 0d point.
3. The resulting line is 2 lines in one.
4. You have 1 line.
5. The line is divided by 2 0d points.
6. The resulting line is 3 lines in one.
7. Division by a 0d point (0) is equal to x+1 with x equaling the number of points. Considering x equals a number points each 0d point (0) is equal to one.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 23, 2021 22:14:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 23, 2021 22:14:14 GMT
I asked for clarification im not sure why your confused that someone would try to have a dialogue with you? Unless you only want to make rhetorical nonsense statements ? And nothingness (the concept) is a thing so obviously it will point to other things Nothingness is the absence of being, nothingness is not even a concept...nothingness is not even "is". This statement self negates into nothing as it is nothing. You are applying false definitions to what I am saying and conflating my argument with another I am not even saying. This nothingness occurs in the gaps between one being and another as the absence of one set of distinction in one being with that in another. In other words "x" having "a" qualities and "y" not having the qualities of "a" necessitates "y" as having a void of these qualities. This void of qualities in one being from that of another is observed as nothingness as nothing is there. Therefore in observing void we observe the relationship between one being and that of another with this relationship pointing to absences. But what I'm trying to say is is that you have created something out of this concept you are calling nothing and you can't deny that because you made a post about it and we're talking about it right now we're talkin about that delusion you have created called nothing And that is the scenario I'm talking about because you can't actually observe no-thing kind of void in between material objects you've imagined it as a process of something that you were unaware of get aware of that is a gap between things when the reality is that there are only things and then concepts called no-thing
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 23, 2021 22:52:24 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 23, 2021 22:52:24 GMT
Nothingness is the absence of being, nothingness is not even a concept...nothingness is not even "is". This statement self negates into nothing as it is nothing. You are applying false definitions to what I am saying and conflating my argument with another I am not even saying. This nothingness occurs in the gaps between one being and another as the absence of one set of distinction in one being with that in another. In other words "x" having "a" qualities and "y" not having the qualities of "a" necessitates "y" as having a void of these qualities. This void of qualities in one being from that of another is observed as nothingness as nothing is there. Therefore in observing void we observe the relationship between one being and that of another with this relationship pointing to absences. But what I'm trying to say is is that you have created something out of this concept you are calling nothing and you can't deny that because you made a post about it and we're talking about it right now we're talkin about that delusion you have created called nothing And that is the scenario I'm talking about because you can't actually observe no-thing kind of void in between material objects you've imagined it as a process of something that you were unaware of get aware of that is a gap between things when the reality is that there are only things and then concepts called no-thing 1. False, nothingness is an absence of conceptualization. To observe nothingness is to observe an absence of concept. To observe an absence of concept one must observe the relationship between one concept and another where one concept is lacking something the other does not. Nothingness is an absence of form. 2. To speak of nothingness as a thing is to speak of nothingness as a relationship where one phenomenon is absent with another, ie void of said phenomenon. Thus nothingness as a concept can be observed as a relationship. Nothingness is thus both a concept when observed relatively and not a concept when observed absolutely. To speak of nothingness absolutely is to speak in contradiction thus nothing is said, in simpler terms to speak of nothingness absolutely is to say nothing at all. 3. We observe the void through the change of phenomenon. The phenomenon changes into something else entirely thus necessitating an absence of characteristics from its prior form. This absence of characteristics is formlessness thus nothingness is observed through change as this change is an absence of form. 4. Yes, you are correct there only exists things. Nothingness is not a thing as it is nothing (ie "no"-thing).
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 26, 2021 6:59:50 GMT
But what I'm trying to say is is that you have created something out of this concept you are calling nothing and you can't deny that because you made a post about it and we're talking about it right now we're talkin about that delusion you have created called nothing And that is the scenario I'm talking about because you can't actually observe no-thing kind of void in between material objects you've imagined it as a process of something that you were unaware of get aware of that is a gap between things when the reality is that there are only things and then concepts called no-thing 1. False, nothingness is an absence of conceptualization. To observe nothingness is to observe an absence of concept. To observe an absence of concept one must observe the relationship between one concept and another where one concept is lacking something the other does not. Nothingness is an absence of form. 2. To speak of nothingness as a thing is to speak of nothingness as a relationship where one phenomenon is absent with another, ie void of said phenomenon. Thus nothingness as a concept can be observed as a relationship. Nothingness is thus both a concept when observed relatively and not a concept when observed absolutely. To speak of nothingness absolutely is to speak in contradiction thus nothing is said, in simpler terms to speak of nothingness absolutely is to say nothing at all. 3. We observe the void through the change of phenomenon. The phenomenon changes into something else entirely thus necessitating an absence of characteristics from its prior form. This absence of characteristics is formlessness thus nothingness is observed through change as this change is an absence of form. 4. Yes, you are correct there only exists things. Nothingness is not a thing as it is nothing (ie "no"-thing). That is not nothingness what you were talking about is one situation that does not have the same characteristics as another which is the very reason why it is a different situation is because of the fact that the things with in that situation are different then the other situation however this does not point to nothingness this just simply points to the fact that you are able to differentiate between the two scenarios plain and simple. And then you can clued my point exactly which is true nothingness can't be talked about because talking about it would not be nothingness so my question is why you keep trying to talk about the nothingness post after post when it's not something that can be talked about? Other than a form of public masturbation for your own dopamine release?
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 30, 2021 20:18:17 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 30, 2021 20:18:17 GMT
1. False, nothingness is an absence of conceptualization. To observe nothingness is to observe an absence of concept. To observe an absence of concept one must observe the relationship between one concept and another where one concept is lacking something the other does not. Nothingness is an absence of form. 2. To speak of nothingness as a thing is to speak of nothingness as a relationship where one phenomenon is absent with another, ie void of said phenomenon. Thus nothingness as a concept can be observed as a relationship. Nothingness is thus both a concept when observed relatively and not a concept when observed absolutely. To speak of nothingness absolutely is to speak in contradiction thus nothing is said, in simpler terms to speak of nothingness absolutely is to say nothing at all. 3. We observe the void through the change of phenomenon. The phenomenon changes into something else entirely thus necessitating an absence of characteristics from its prior form. This absence of characteristics is formlessness thus nothingness is observed through change as this change is an absence of form. 4. Yes, you are correct there only exists things. Nothingness is not a thing as it is nothing (ie "no"-thing). That is not nothingness what you were talking about is one situation that does not have the same characteristics as another which is the very reason why it is a different situation is because of the fact that the things with in that situation are different then the other situation however this does not point to nothingness this just simply points to the fact that you are able to differentiate between the two scenarios plain and simple. And then you can clued my point exactly which is true nothingness can't be talked about because talking about it would not be nothingness so my question is why you keep trying to talk about the nothingness post after post when it's not something that can be talked about? Other than a form of public masturbation for your own dopamine release? Nothingness can only be observed through a relationship thus nothingness can be talked about. One thing relates to another and in this relationship there is an absence of one phenomenon's qualities within another. For example a horse relates to the field it is in. The field is absent of the qualities of the horse (head, legs, mane, etc.) and in these respects is void of these phenomena. Differentiation observes the void of one phenomenon in another thus to talk about nothingness as a thing is to talk about nothingness as a relationship. Nothingness can be observed through a relationship as a relationship. To talk of pure nothingness is self negating as to talk about pure nothingness is to point to a thing yet nothingness is not a thing, nothingness is not even an "is". Pure nothingness is not existent and any talk of pure nothingness is to say nothing as the statement is self refuting. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk through a statement which is self negating, ie there is no pure nothingness only being. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk of being as only being exists, thus a form of equivocation occurs where to talk of pure nothingness is to talk about being. This is considering a pure void, both abstract and physical, must be void of the very same void if the void is all encompassing. In these respects void is voided an only being exists. This premise to being as the voiding of void necessitates all being as grounded in a double negation where said void is negated as it does not exist....to speak of void under these terms is to speak of pure being.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 17:57:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 31, 2021 17:57:44 GMT
That is not nothingness what you were talking about is one situation that does not have the same characteristics as another which is the very reason why it is a different situation is because of the fact that the things with in that situation are different then the other situation however this does not point to nothingness this just simply points to the fact that you are able to differentiate between the two scenarios plain and simple. And then you can clued my point exactly which is true nothingness can't be talked about because talking about it would not be nothingness so my question is why you keep trying to talk about the nothingness post after post when it's not something that can be talked about? Other than a form of public masturbation for your own dopamine release? Nothingness can only be observed through a relationship thus nothingness can be talked about. One thing relates to another and in this relationship there is an absence of one phenomenon's qualities within another. For example a horse relates to the field it is in. The field is absent of the qualities of the horse (head, legs, mane, etc.) and in these respects is void of these phenomena. Differentiation observes the void of one phenomenon in another thus to talk about nothingness as a thing is to talk about nothingness as a relationship. Nothingness can be observed through a relationship as a relationship. To talk of pure nothingness is self negating as to talk about pure nothingness is to point to a thing yet nothingness is not a thing, nothingness is not even an "is". Pure nothingness is not existent and any talk of pure nothingness is to say nothing as the statement is self refuting. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk through a statement which is self negating, ie there is no pure nothingness only being. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk of being as only being exists, thus a form of equivocation occurs where to talk of pure nothingness is to talk about being. This is considering a pure void, both abstract and physical, must be void of the very same void if the void is all encompassing. In these respects void is voided an only being exists. This premise to being as the voiding of void necessitates all being as grounded in a double negation where said void is negated as it does not exist....to speak of void under these terms is to speak of pure being. no person in there right mind calls the lack of something in another thing I e "a horse is not the grass" as nothingness that's just stupid. I'm not the Moon that does not mean there is a nothingness void of absolute nothingness in me in which no moon exists that you are somehow observing through observing me separate from the Moon. You are just observing me and then you're observing the Moon two different objects there is not a void of absolute nothingness in between technically there are in the earth in between and the simple fact that you are observing in any way shape or form or that be directly or indirectly would not make anything nothingness you would make it something because you're incapable of even knowing of something that would be nothing the only thing you can sense our things that are things rather that be a mental or physical so even the thought of nothing is still a thing it's a conceptual language thing but it's not actually a nothing so I bring up my original point if you are talking about something calling it nothing for a pointless reason that I can only see as mental masturbation
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 20:10:44 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 31, 2021 20:10:44 GMT
Nothingness can only be observed through a relationship thus nothingness can be talked about. One thing relates to another and in this relationship there is an absence of one phenomenon's qualities within another. For example a horse relates to the field it is in. The field is absent of the qualities of the horse (head, legs, mane, etc.) and in these respects is void of these phenomena. Differentiation observes the void of one phenomenon in another thus to talk about nothingness as a thing is to talk about nothingness as a relationship. Nothingness can be observed through a relationship as a relationship. To talk of pure nothingness is self negating as to talk about pure nothingness is to point to a thing yet nothingness is not a thing, nothingness is not even an "is". Pure nothingness is not existent and any talk of pure nothingness is to say nothing as the statement is self refuting. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk through a statement which is self negating, ie there is no pure nothingness only being. To talk of pure nothingness is to talk of being as only being exists, thus a form of equivocation occurs where to talk of pure nothingness is to talk about being. This is considering a pure void, both abstract and physical, must be void of the very same void if the void is all encompassing. In these respects void is voided an only being exists. This premise to being as the voiding of void necessitates all being as grounded in a double negation where said void is negated as it does not exist....to speak of void under these terms is to speak of pure being. no person in there right mind calls the lack of something in another thing I e "a horse is not the grass" as nothingness that's just stupid. I'm not the Moon that does not mean there is a nothingness void of absolute nothingness in me in which no moon exists that you are somehow observing through observing me separate from the Moon. You are just observing me and then you're observing the Moon two different objects there is not a void of absolute nothingness in between technically there are in the earth in between and the simple fact that you are observing in any way shape or form or that be directly or indirectly would not make anything nothingness you would make it something because you're incapable of even knowing of something that would be nothing the only thing you can sense our things that are things rather that be a mental or physical so even the thought of nothing is still a thing it's a conceptual language thing but it's not actually a nothing so I bring up my original point if you are talking about something calling it nothing for a pointless reason that I can only see as mental masturbation If it is only mental masturbation, according to you, then discussing these things, on your part, is mental masturbation. Why contribute unless your perspective feels threatened? The grass as lacking head, legs, etc. is void of head, legs, etc. Void is the absence of one quality when compared to another quality. This is void in the relative sense and it is the speaking of relations. To look at an object and see no "x" is to observe the object as void of "x". There is a void where "x" should be. Void in the absolute sense is a contradiction as one is observing something when speaking of void in the absolute sense. Like I said before, and I will repeat myself, a perfect void is self negating....void voids itself if it is a perfect void, this leaves only being observed. This being which results under the voiding of void is without form. Form is the gradation of the one with the one being the totality of forms through a complete formlessness.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 20:31:21 GMT
Post by jonbain on Aug 31, 2021 20:31:21 GMT
You cannot divide by 0.When you divide the line, you a dividing a by a single quantum: 1.
This is the same mistake that was made by Lord Rayleigh in the ultraviolet catastrophe which led him to conclude that there is infinite energy at any point. This is why Planck gave us quantum energy (and quantum time). This is the very origin of quantum theory which has had the disastrous effect of so much garbledigook that abuses the term 'quantum mechanics'. Its also the essence of Zeno's paradox. Here is an old paper I wrote on that topic which leads on to the solution to 3D-n-body-gravity: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 20:44:54 GMT
via mobile
jonbain likes this
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 31, 2021 20:44:54 GMT
>>>If it is only mental masturbation, according to you, then discussing these things, on your part, is mental masturbation. <<<
no the masturbating part would be your pleasure and enjoyment from masticating with no true goal in mind in an attempt to sound philosophical in front of others
me asking for clarity and or correcting you is the equivalent of your mother walking in the room and saying "Michael what are you doing, oh my God Michael no, put that thing away Michael." there's a clear difference.
>>>Why contribute unless your perspective feels threatened? <<<
that's the standard immature way of looking at most scenarios where differences of opinion are involved. But I hope one day you'll understand that trying to clarify and or correct a persons fallacious nonsensical Concepts in front of other people is the equivalent of trying to avoid your little sister walking in on you while you're in your room listening to loud rock music looking at a picture of Britney Spears while "meditating"
>>>The grass as lacking head, legs, etc. is void of head, legs, etc. Void is the absence of one quality when compared to another quality. This is void in the relative sense and it is the speaking of relations. To look at an object and see no "x" is to observe the object as void of "x". There is a void where "x" should be.<<<
say something is void of something else indicates that it used to have it and yet it is no longer there but that is not the case with the cow not being grass the cow is not made to be grass the cow is made to eat grass but not be the grass therefore the cow not being the grass is not avoid of anything it's just simply the cow doesn't have grass or isn't the grass there's no void there.
>>>Void in the absolute sense is a contradiction as one is observing something when speaking of void in the absolute sense. Like I said before, and I will repeat myself, a perfect void is self negating....void voids itself if it is a perfect void, this leaves only being observed. This being which results under the voiding of void is without form. Form is the gradation of the one with the one being the totality of forms through a complete formlessness<<<
I think you're the only person in existence that misunderstands semantics so badly. void is a term we use in communicating to other beings but it doesn't necessarily point to an actual thing it's just used in language it's how we describe things to one another and has absolutely nothing to do with "the one"
I think you have severely misunderstood what void means and is and are using it in the wrong context.
not to mention how does this help anybody understand reality better?
it doesn't pertain to reality yet you try to word things in a roundabout way to appear intelligent but it only makes you look immature and seem like a terrible lyrics writer for hip hop trying to reuse the same word a million times in one post
and it doesn't have any type of productive outcome it's literally just you sitting there stroking it how does this help with philosophy of life in any way? how does this better your life?
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 21:08:47 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 31, 2021 21:08:47 GMT
You cannot divide by 0.When you divide the line, you a dividing a by a single quantum: 1.
This is the same mistake that was made by Lord Rayleigh in the ultraviolet catastrophe which led him to conclude that there is infinite energy at any point. This is why Planck gave us quantum energy (and quantum time). This is the very origin of quantum theory which has had the disastrous effect of so much garbledigook that abuses the term 'quantum mechanics'. Its also the essence of Zeno's paradox. Here is an old paper I wrote on that topic which leads on to the solution to 3D-n-body-gravity: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm When you are dividing the line you are dividing it by a 0d point. A 0d point is nothing, it is 0, as it observes no qualities. To say it is 1 point is to count 0 into multiples thus equating 0 to 1.
|
|
|
0=1
Aug 31, 2021 21:15:05 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 31, 2021 21:15:05 GMT
>>>If it is only mental masturbation, according to you, then discussing these things, on your part, is mental masturbation. <<< no the masturbating part would be your pleasure and enjoyment from masticating with no true goal in mind in an attempt to sound philosophical in front of others me asking for clarity and or correcting you is the equivalent of your mother walking in the room and saying "Michael what are you doing, oh my God Michael no, put that thing away Michael." there's a clear difference. >>>Why contribute unless your perspective feels threatened? <<< that's the standard immature way of looking at most scenarios where differences of opinion are involved. But I hope one day you'll understand that trying to clarify and or correct a persons fallacious nonsensical Concepts in front of other people is the equivalent of trying to avoid your little sister walking in on you while you're in your room listening to loud rock music looking at a picture of Britney Spears while "meditating" >>>The grass as lacking head, legs, etc. is void of head, legs, etc. Void is the absence of one quality when compared to another quality. This is void in the relative sense and it is the speaking of relations. To look at an object and see no "x" is to observe the object as void of "x". There is a void where "x" should be.<<< say something is void of something else indicates that it used to have it and yet it is no longer there but that is not the case with the cow not being grass the cow is not made to be grass the cow is made to eat grass but not be the grass therefore the cow not being the grass is not avoid of anything it's just simply the cow doesn't have grass or isn't the grass there's no void there. >>>Void in the absolute sense is a contradiction as one is observing something when speaking of void in the absolute sense. Like I said before, and I will repeat myself, a perfect void is self negating....void voids itself if it is a perfect void, this leaves only being observed. This being which results under the voiding of void is without form. Form is the gradation of the one with the one being the totality of forms through a complete formlessness<<< I think you're the only person in existence that misunderstands semantics so badly. void is a term we use in communicating to other beings but it doesn't necessarily point to an actual thing it's just used in language it's how we describe things to one another and has absolutely nothing to do with "the one" I think you have severely misunderstood what void means and is and are using it in the wrong context. not to mention how does this help anybody understand reality better? it doesn't pertain to reality yet you try to word things in a roundabout way to appear intelligent but it only makes you look immature and seem like a terrible lyrics writer for hip hop trying to reuse the same word a million times in one post and it doesn't have any type of productive outcome it's literally just you sitting there stroking it how does this help with philosophy of life in any way? how does this better your life? 1. And I did give you clarity. To speak of void in a relative sense is to observe relations between things. To speak of void in an absolute sense is a contradiction. 2. Void of one quality does not imply that it used to have it, it implies it is absent of said quality, not whether one use to have it or may potentially have it. 3. You said: "void is a term we use in communicating to other beings but it doesn't necessarily point to an actual thing it's just used in language it's how we describe things to one another and has absolutely nothing to do with "the one"" On one hand you say void is a term that doesn't point to any thing. Then you say terms are used in language to describe things. So which is it? 4. It helps practically speaking given if one observes things as empty in themselves one is less likely to be greedy and cause further suffering. It has moral results.
|
|
|
0=1
Sept 1, 2021 15:19:26 GMT
Post by jonbain on Sept 1, 2021 15:19:26 GMT
You cannot divide by 0.When you divide the line, you a dividing a by a single quantum: 1.
This is the same mistake that was made by Lord Rayleigh in the ultraviolet catastrophe which led him to conclude that there is infinite energy at any point. This is why Planck gave us quantum energy (and quantum time). This is the very origin of quantum theory which has had the disastrous effect of so much garbledigook that abuses the term 'quantum mechanics'. Its also the essence of Zeno's paradox. Here is an old paper I wrote on that topic which leads on to the solution to 3D-n-body-gravity: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/zeno-and-planck.htm When you are dividing the line you are dividing it by a 0d point. A 0d point is nothing, it is 0, as it observes no qualities. To say it is 1 point is to count 0 into multiples thus equating 0 to 1. This is the problem with infinite divisibility.
Its a fallacy as Zeno's paradox shows.
Do you know what Zeno's paradox is? (Maybe see the link above).
This is why i keep saying that you need to program these theories in an evolutionary algorithm.
A computer screen cannot be divided into infinite pixels. Eventually, you get to the smallest unit which is a pixel. A pixel is = 1. You divide it by "a" point. That is always 1, never 0.
The same goes for event-timers. This is where it becomes even more explicit. Eventually you get the smallest possible unit of time. For Planck its about 10^-43 seconds as the current estimate, though I have certainly seen that value at different amounts over the years.
Nevertheless, what you say: "0=1" is the illogical conclusion that results from infinite divisibility, which IS a premise of calculus. But you can make any claim you like by typing or writing words. Until you develop an evolutionary algorithm, you will unlikely appreciate this fact.
But there is an existential conclusion to this which is
quite interesting. Because we know that the universe operates to finite quanta of time, and possibly space as well, it seems that the universe operates according to algorithmic logic. Does that make it like a computer?
Probably.
But the mind can imagine beyond this, once more proving that the mind is a priori to the physical universe.
Thus the soul exists beyond the physical universe.
|
|
|
0=1
Sept 7, 2021 18:13:04 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 7, 2021 18:13:04 GMT
When you are dividing the line you are dividing it by a 0d point. A 0d point is nothing, it is 0, as it observes no qualities. To say it is 1 point is to count 0 into multiples thus equating 0 to 1. This is the problem with infinite divisibility.
Its a fallacy as Zeno's paradox shows.
Do you know what Zeno's paradox is? (Maybe see the link above).
This is why i keep saying that you need to program these theories in an evolutionary algorithm.
A computer screen cannot be divided into infinite pixels. Eventually, you get to the smallest unit which is a pixel. A pixel is = 1. You divide it by "a" point. That is always 1, never 0.
The same goes for event-timers. This is where it becomes even more explicit. Eventually you get the smallest possible unit of time. For Planck its about 10^-43 seconds as the current estimate, though I have certainly seen that value at different amounts over the years.
Nevertheless, what you say: "0=1" is the illogical conclusion that results from infinite divisibility, which IS a premise of calculus. But you can make any claim you like by typing or writing words. Until you develop an evolutionary algorithm, you will unlikely appreciate this fact.
But there is an existential conclusion to this which is
quite interesting. Because we know that the universe operates to finite quanta of time, and possibly space as well, it seems that the universe operates according to algorithmic logic. Does that make it like a computer?
Probably.
But the mind can imagine beyond this, once more proving that the mind is a priori to the physical universe.
Thus the soul exists beyond the physical universe.
1. Strawman, I am not addressing infinite regress but rather the quantification of zero. In counting the number of points a line is divided by is to quantify the 0d point and to equate 0 to one. Dually zeno's paradox deals with infinity directly as when a phenomenon is infinitely measured it results in stillness of said phenomenon. Infinite measurement results in no movement. 2. The pixel can be divided into further point particles which compose the pixel itself (considering the pixel is the arrangement of atoms), just because the measurement ends on a screen does not mean the measurement ends. 3. A line can be divided into further lines and into further lines which each line being a fractal of the former. A line, as an abstract entity, can be divided ad-infinitum with each division of the line resulting in further lines. The line, as continually dividing, is a dynamic entity and as dynamic maintains a degree of no definition which is reflected further in the fact the line is of infinite length. The line as infinite in length is only finite relative to another line, with finiteness being multiple infinities relative to eachother. 4. Plank length is a unit of measurement which only reflects our current ability to measure. As a distance it is subject to linear space and as subject to linear space is subject to the same paradoxes which occur in the line. 5. Division by 0 results in an undefined state. An algorithm cannot process this absence of definition as it only deals with defined entities. An algorithm is not proof or disproof of an event occuring such as the number 1 or 0. It cannot prove 1 or 0 exists but rather only reflects that which exists prior to the algorithm
|
|
|
0=1
Sept 8, 2021 18:02:09 GMT
Post by jonbain on Sept 8, 2021 18:02:09 GMT
in the context of the computer screen, the pixel cannot be divided further in the context of the physical universe, the quantum cannot be divided further the mind can pretend what it likes but such pretense can have no substantial worth in the physical world the reason why i use the algorithm as micro-universe is that the algorithm is something substantial and logical
there are plenty of worthless meaningless thoughts but all functional algorithms must adhere to proper logic
so if the results of your ideas cannot be reduced to algorithm, then they are illogical, worthless meaningless
of course the creative process of mind is something else, how logic is created is mystical but if the results of that process are not logical they are worthless in themselves
the algorithm proves 1 and 0 exist all the time the very fact that we use the computer to communicate proves that they exist as logical substantial entities
|
|
|
0=1
Sept 13, 2021 21:08:38 GMT
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 13, 2021 21:08:38 GMT
in the context of the computer screen, the pixel cannot be divided further in the context of the physical universe, the quantum cannot be divided further the mind can pretend what it likes but such pretense can have no substantial worth in the physical world the reason why i use the algorithm as micro-universe is that the algorithm is something substantial and logical there are plenty of worthless meaningless thoughts but all functional algorithms must adhere to proper logic so if the results of your ideas cannot be reduced to algorithm, then they are illogical, worthless meaningless of course the creative process of mind is something else, how logic is created is mystical but if the results of that process are not logical they are worthless in themselves the algorithm proves 1 and 0 exist all the time the very fact that we use the computer to communicate proves that they exist as logical substantial entities 1. The context of the computer screen requires a context beyond it in order to exist. Thus with the division of one context, ie the pixel, comes a new context, ie the atoms. 2. The context of the quantum requires a context beyond it in order to exist. This context is the simple line given the quantum exists as a subset of measurement. 3. All programming is a replication of what comes across the human mind. A line being divided into further lines continually, as an image, can be programmed. Programming does not inhibit possibilities but rather enhances the imaginative aspects of the human mind given what can be imagined can be programmed. 4. All my thoughts can be typed in to a computer and replicated as seen by this very statement. The algorithms which allow for ability to type on this forum are the same algorithms which allow me to type 1=0. Algorithms result in any statement imaginable, as evidenced by my words being typed into this forum. 5. If the foundations of logic are indefinite then any biproduct of logic comes from an indefinite source. Given the source is indefinite, any resulting formula is taken strictly as an assumption with little to no justification behind it. You contradict yourself in stating the foundations of logic are mystical as this results in the biproduct, as a subset of the axioms of logic (which are mystical), being mystical as well. As mystical they lack a complete all encompassing definition thus are subject to degrees of ambiguity. An example of this ambiguity can be observed in the statement of 1+1=2 being equivocable to just about anything.5. You are again using a strawman in your argument. As I stated before the very fact that we can quantify the number of zeros into multiples of one necessitates one is being equated to zero. To say there are "x" 0's is to equate 0 to 1 or a multiple of 1.
|
|