| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Proof that existence is a dichotomy
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Huang |
 Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
Maybe, by sending telescopes in space, we are changing the universe
and affecting the way it operates. By the way, this is not my crackpot
theory, some well-known phycists came up with it.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:58 am |
|
|
|
|
On 1 mai, 09:58, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The non-copenhagen
interpretation (causalist) simply is that QM is unable to determine
whether something exists or not while it is not being observed.
André Michaud
Quote: Maybe, by sending telescopes in space, we are changing the universe
and affecting the way it operates. By the way, this is not my crackpot
theory, some well-known phycists came up with it.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Huang |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 8:58 am, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
I did mix the physical and mathematical usages of the notion of
existence, but was very careful to not confuse them.
Quote: There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
I am familiar with that sillyness. If any of it were true, I'd be
observing many things into existence right now - including some hot
blondes and big piles of cash. Half pound of reefer would hit the spot
too. And a six-pack of Heineken (it's Jew Brew).
Quote: Maybe, by sending telescopes in space, we are changing the universe
and affecting the way it operates. By the way, this is not my crackpot
theory, some well-known phycists came up with it.
Bahhhh.....
These are the _contortions_ that people must go through to reconcile
the nonsense.
By asking "which way" one alters the experiment by requesting a
customized output.
Look - I have a "magic coin" that I can toss. It can out put two
different types of random output when you flip it. It can out put
continuous or discrete outputs. If you ask it "heads or tails" then
your output will be in that format. But if you dont ask that question,
then it will output a continuous valuation from 0 to 1, heads being 0
tails being 1.
Now - that is what space does, and that is what I believe.
Quote: Mike- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Huang |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 1:58 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On 1 mai, 09:58, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The non-copenhagen
interpretation (causalist) simply is that QM is unable to determine
whether something exists or not while it is not being observed.
André Michaud
It seems SILLY that someone could accept Copenhagen - and yet
disregard existential indeterminacy as I have explained it.
SILLY say I.
All I am really saying is that random length is indeterminately
continuous or discrete. That's basically it - and not no way to argue
against it except to protest against indeterminacy and paradox. That
is all.
Personally, I think that paradox is alive and well in nature, or
indeterminately so. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Huang |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 8:26 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 1, 1:58 pm, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 mai, 09:58, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The non-copenhagen
interpretation (causalist) simply is that QM is unable to determine
whether something exists or not while it is not being observed.
André Michaud
It seems SILLY that someone could accept Copenhagen - and yet
disregard existential indeterminacy as I have explained it.
SILLY say I.
All I am really saying is that random length is indeterminately
continuous or discrete. That's basically it - and not no way to argue
against it except to protest against indeterminacy and paradox. That
is all.
Personally, I think that paradox is alive and well in nature, or
indeterminately so.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There are two ways to consider random length.
[a] you have a segment with a random bit hanging off the end
somewhere, or maybe somewhere in the middle, whatever. Basically, this
is just a length L + R where R is some random chunk.
or
[b] A length segment where each point in the segment is assigned a
probability that it exists. An existential potential. The potential
does not have to be linear. It can be a nonlinear distribution.
now -
1) The "expected value" or "expected length" of [a] and [b] are the
same.
2) You cannot "observe" a random bit which never happened. You cannot
observe random outcomes which were never realized. When you observe
length, you _must_ be observing an expected length.
3) There is no way to say if you have case [a] or case [b] if all you
are given is an expected length. It's just like being given a number
and being asked if it is a product or a sum. You simply dont have
enough information to answer it, and so it is indeterminate. And so is
the continuity/discreteness of space.
Now - THAT should make one hell of alot more sense that Copenhagen. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Yanick Toutain |
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Monsieur André Michaud
Je suis content de vous voir écrire sur ce forum, de constater la
pugnacité toujours effective de l'adversaire acharné des idioties de
Copenhague, l'adversaire du refus des causalités par le fasciste
Heisenberg.
Celui-ci cherchait à protéger son héros du déterminisme antérieur : il
ne fallait pas le Fürher soit déterminé par toute l'histoire humaine
antérieure.
Son apologie imbécile de la "volonté" n'est que propagande éhontée
pour le facisme.==========Mr André Michaud
I am glad to see you writing on this forum, to note the always
effective pugnacity of the keen adversary of idiocies of Copenhagen,
the adversary of the refusal of causalities by the Heisenberg fascist.
This one sought to protect its hero from the former determinism: one
did not need Fürher is determined by all the former human history.
Its idiotic apology for the “will” is only shameless propaganda for
the facism.
==================Au fait, monsieur Michaud:quand allez vous donc cesser de me
considérer come transparent ?
Quand allez vous vous décider à répondre
-ou aux courriers que je vous ai envoyés, il y a plusieurs années,
sur vos deux boîte-aux-lettres
- ou aux messages publics que j'ai rédigés suite aux vôtres.
PS les inégalités de Heisenberg contiennent UNE chose et rien
d'autre : il existe un photon , le plus massif avec la plus courte
longueur d'onde.
La quantification des longueurs d'onde est un ajout.
========================With the fact, Mr Michaud: when thus cease regarding me as
transparency?
When will decide to you to answer
- or with the mails that I sent to you, several years ago, on your
two letter-box
- or with the public messages which I wrote following yours.
PS the inequalities of Heisenberg contain a thing and anything else:
there exists the photon, most massive with the shortest wavelength.
The quantification wavelengths is an addition.
========================
On 1 mai, 20:58, srp2...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: On 1 mai, 09:58, Mike <elea...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
On May 1, 9:46 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Proof that existence is a dichotomy.
THERE IS NO such proof.
There is a view that something either exists, or it does not. That
there is no "in -between".
There is no proof of this. None.
If we are talking about pure mathematics, there is no reason
whatsoever that one should be banned from modelling something as being
existentially indeterminate. That a cube or a point or a line exists
with probability .5 say.
Physics may be a little different because it deals with nature. But in
math, there is no reason whatsoever that existence should be required
to be a dichotomy throughout all of mathematics.
There are plenty of cases where existence must be a dichotomy, but
that does not prove that this is universally true.
The solution to f(x)=0 either exists or it does not. This is certainly
a dichotomy, unless your choice of f(x) is allowed to be random
somehow. But for all nonrandomly chosen f(x), certainly the existence
of solutions _is_ a dichotomy.
You confuse indeterminate solutions with existence or no of solutions.
There are systems of logic where the law of excluded middle is not
used, i.e. pV~p is not required for consistency.
In QM something neither exists nor it does not, until you observe it.
This is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The non-copenhagen
interpretation (causalist) simply is that QM is unable to determine
whether something exists or not while it is not being observed.
André Michaud
Maybe, by sending telescopes in space, we are changing the universe
and affecting the way it operates. By the way, this is not my crackpot
theory, some well-known phycists came up with it.
Mike |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat May 17, 2008 2:56 am
|
|
