| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Logic/math tools
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tarald Andresen |
 Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi. My only formal education in math is one exam from engineering-school,
and I'm not familiar with much formal logic, even though I've studied
philosophy for a couple of years, but I'd like to ask for some advice
concerning the possible use of math/logic to back up the theory/attempted
proof below. It has a rather rudimentary form, but as far as I can judge it
is precise enough to form an opinion about its truth-value, so to speak. So
any tips are welcome; about specific areas of math, set-theory, for
instance, or more detailed information. I'd like opinions as to the
truth-value of the theory also, but I hope it will be constructive. It's a
rather pittorescque little thing I know, but anyway...
----------
An attempted proof that all is consciousness, and that all structures are
composed of basic "consciousness-structures":
--------
- Existence is necessary: nothingness/emptiness cannot exist (an "empty
space" has no content - it "consists" of nothingness - thus the consept
'empty
space' must also be empty, have no content).
- Existence viewed as a totality is unconditional: there is nothing outside
it. Its unconditionality obviously makes it *absolute*, that is: infinite
(limitless), eternal, and uncomparable with anything else.
- Absolute existence is perfect: totality's only point of reference
qualitatively is itself (there is nothing else), and it can obviously not be
worse than itself - thus it has no flaws or shortcommings of any kind.
- Perfect objective existence implies subjective existence: it is
*meaningless* to designate something as perfect if it isn't perfect *for*
somebody: consciousness (intellect) is a precondition for *meaning*.
- But if consciousness is necessary (in principle/in general), then it must
be absolute; i.e. exist everywhere. And of course vice versa; if it can't be
conceived not to exist (in principle/in general), it can't be conceived not
to exist *anywhere*.
Infinity then has three necessary qualities: matter (which also implies
movement/energy), consciousness, and perfection. These must then be
explainable as functions of the "deepest layer" in microcosmos, that which
all other structures (or "things", phenonema, etc.) must be a function of,
since the "layer" itself must be necessary and absolute (everywhere in
the infinite microcosmos) in order to explain something of the same kind
(something necessary and absolute).
As they are absolutes, these three - matter, consciousness, perfection -
can't be
separated from eachother, and thus must form one unit, one structure. Since
nothing else is necessary, these other things must then be seen as
explainable in terms of what's necessary, there's simply no other way to
account for them (there must be a connection of some sort between the two in
order to explain the absolutes in macrocosmos). One can then conclude that
our entire world must be composed of perfect "consciousness-structures"
(of "floating" matter, since there is no notingness/empty space/anything
"in-between") which also create an infinite consciousness.
It seems strange maybe, although the thought is not new, that
consciousness then cannot be limited to separate beings, but as far as I can
see this is a necessary conclusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tim |
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tarald Andresen" <terry.firma@jeg.er.online.no> wrote in message
news:LnQFb.7907$Y06.123550@news4.e.nsc.no...
Quote: Hi. My only formal education in math is one exam from engineering-school,
and I'm not familiar with much formal logic, even though I've studied
philosophy for a couple of years, but I'd like to ask for some advice
concerning the possible use of math/logic to back up the theory/attempted
proof below. It has a rather rudimentary form, but as far as I can judge
it
is precise enough to form an opinion about its truth-value, so to speak.
So
any tips are welcome; about specific areas of math, set-theory, for
instance, or more detailed information. I'd like opinions as to the
truth-value of the theory also, but I hope it will be constructive. It's a
rather pittorescque little thing I know, but anyway...
----------
An attempted proof that all is consciousness, and that all structures are
composed of basic "consciousness-structures":
--------
- Existence is necessary: nothingness/emptiness cannot exist (an "empty
space" has no content - it "consists" of nothingness - thus the consept
'empty
space' must also be empty, have no content).
- Existence viewed as a totality is unconditional: there is nothing
outside
it. Its unconditionality obviously makes it *absolute*, that is: infinite
(limitless), eternal, and uncomparable with anything else.
- Absolute existence is perfect: totality's only point of reference
qualitatively is itself (there is nothing else), and it can obviously not
be
worse than itself - thus it has no flaws or shortcommings of any kind.
- Perfect objective existence implies subjective existence: it is
*meaningless* to designate something as perfect if it isn't perfect *for*
somebody: consciousness (intellect) is a precondition for *meaning*.
- But if consciousness is necessary (in principle/in general), then it
must
be absolute; i.e. exist everywhere. And of course vice versa; if it can't
be
conceived not to exist (in principle/in general), it can't be conceived
not
to exist *anywhere*.
Infinity then has three necessary qualities: matter (which also implies
movement/energy), consciousness, and perfection. These must then be
explainable as functions of the "deepest layer" in microcosmos, that which
all other structures (or "things", phenonema, etc.) must be a function of,
since the "layer" itself must be necessary and absolute (everywhere in
the infinite microcosmos) in order to explain something of the same kind
(something necessary and absolute).
As they are absolutes, these three - matter, consciousness, perfection -
can't be
separated from eachother, and thus must form one unit, one structure.
Since
nothing else is necessary, these other things must then be seen as
explainable in terms of what's necessary, there's simply no other way to
account for them (there must be a connection of some sort between the two
in
order to explain the absolutes in macrocosmos). One can then conclude that
our entire world must be composed of perfect "consciousness-structures"
(of "floating" matter, since there is no notingness/empty space/anything
"in-between") which also create an infinite consciousness.
It seems strange maybe, although the thought is not new, that
consciousness then cannot be limited to separate beings, but as far as I
can
see this is a necessary conclusion.
I would suggest you read Descates' Discourse on Method, some Aristotle and
Plato, and get hold of an introductory Logic text. Note that you can't
really prove what you have stated above. It is speculative. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |-|erc |
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The level of metaphysics makes it difficult to formalise. I agree, if 2 particles
lightyears apart can be quantum entangled and influence each other, then every particle
can be entangled with every other particle, or some level in between. That is, separate
matter is only our immediate physical reference to the world.
Consciousness is alive and well and saturates our world, our minds just enter
the combined awareness of our Universe. When you walk into a room and
the actress on TV says 'hello', its not coincidence, how is our phyical representation
of a living being different to a character merely represented a different way.
Our actions do work to levels of perfection, the universe doesn't make grade
copies, evolution itself is optimised. I have several beginnings to a proof of macro
consciousness, mostly that language itself is too entwined to be invented. If
we accept substitues for words and phrases, their mnemonics, phonetics, colloquialisms
the new domain we invent works by itself. All the lingo used on the internet can
be used in its own grammar of sentences and be meaningful. There is a definite
parallel that *exists*. Why is the smartest man named Hawking? Why did the
most famous person Lady Di die? Why was the star wars program introduced by
Ronald Ray Gun, Tiger Woods play the best golf?....
We are a lucky species. We spend most of our energy fighting gravity, we
carry one kilogram brains with masses of muscle, a smaller brain and we would
think more like animals, if gravity was twice as strong we would not have
made it, if gravity was half as strong we would have no atmosphere. Its a narrow
window that allows us to live.
If computers were 1,000 times faster the internet would be less problematic, if
they were 1000 times slower we would not use them. If data transfer was 1,000 times
slower we would not use it. If radio bandwidth was 1,000 times less we would
not have TV. If water boiled at 100 kelvin there would be no carbon based life.
If the atmosphere was 10 times thinner planes would not work. If petrol was 1%
as energy rich we would be riding horses. Every facet of life and technology rides
on properties of the universe that have narrow windows of operation, they just allow us to
operate things effectively. When designing things it is often enough to look at a
completely different field and follow the analogy between two different objects, and
the design will 'fit in'. So how does the mass of coincidence and luck come into play?
Somewhere in the subatomic levels of matter and the fabric of space, and the intangible
platonic world of absolute knowledge all the variables are optimised for our very existence.
Quote: [Zagan]
If you were to win 10 million dollars in a lottery, would you assume the
universe had been ridged to cause this to happen?
millions have won lotteries it would seem inevitable even in a random universe.
the point is the machinery of life is so complicated. if osmosis was not a property
of fluids no water could reach plant cells, a simple facet of physics we take for
granted, yet without it ~ no life. there are literally hundreds of physical phenomena
life depends on. you could list 1,000 conveniences around you on top of what
is necessary. what if gravity was 1,000 times stronger than what it is? we would
be limited to pin sized brains, not enough to marvel at physics. and why couldn't
it be 1,000 times more? only 10^3, is that luck? why matter AND radiation? life could
exist without us seeing, radiation sure makes its more viewable. not only do we sit
in a matrix of matter with deterministic principles propelling it through time, a wad
load of photons bounces of every point of it in every direction so it can be internally
mapped from any near location.
On our side is the smartest man Chris Langran, the highest IQ score with his work
on CTMU, that the world works according to grammars like a living computer.
Good Luck!
Herc
----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------
"Tarald Andresen" <terry.firma@jeg.er.online.no> wrote in
Quote: Hi. My only formal education in math is one exam from engineering-school,
and I'm not familiar with much formal logic, even though I've studied
philosophy for a couple of years, but I'd like to ask for some advice
concerning the possible use of math/logic to back up the theory/attempted
proof below. It has a rather rudimentary form, but as far as I can judge it
is precise enough to form an opinion about its truth-value, so to speak. So
any tips are welcome; about specific areas of math, set-theory, for
instance, or more detailed information. I'd like opinions as to the
truth-value of the theory also, but I hope it will be constructive. It's a
rather pittorescque little thing I know, but anyway...
----------
An attempted proof that all is consciousness, and that all structures are
composed of basic "consciousness-structures":
--------
- Existence is necessary: nothingness/emptiness cannot exist (an "empty
space" has no content - it "consists" of nothingness - thus the consept
'empty
space' must also be empty, have no content).
- Existence viewed as a totality is unconditional: there is nothing outside
it. Its unconditionality obviously makes it *absolute*, that is: infinite
(limitless), eternal, and uncomparable with anything else.
- Absolute existence is perfect: totality's only point of reference
qualitatively is itself (there is nothing else), and it can obviously not be
worse than itself - thus it has no flaws or shortcommings of any kind.
- Perfect objective existence implies subjective existence: it is
*meaningless* to designate something as perfect if it isn't perfect *for*
somebody: consciousness (intellect) is a precondition for *meaning*.
- But if consciousness is necessary (in principle/in general), then it must
be absolute; i.e. exist everywhere. And of course vice versa; if it can't be
conceived not to exist (in principle/in general), it can't be conceived not
to exist *anywhere*.
Infinity then has three necessary qualities: matter (which also implies
movement/energy), consciousness, and perfection. These must then be
explainable as functions of the "deepest layer" in microcosmos, that which
all other structures (or "things", phenonema, etc.) must be a function of,
since the "layer" itself must be necessary and absolute (everywhere in
the infinite microcosmos) in order to explain something of the same kind
(something necessary and absolute).
As they are absolutes, these three - matter, consciousness, perfection -
can't be
separated from eachother, and thus must form one unit, one structure. Since
nothing else is necessary, these other things must then be seen as
explainable in terms of what's necessary, there's simply no other way to
account for them (there must be a connection of some sort between the two in
order to explain the absolutes in macrocosmos). One can then conclude that
our entire world must be composed of perfect "consciousness-structures"
(of "floating" matter, since there is no notingness/empty space/anything
"in-between") which also create an infinite consciousness.
It seems strange maybe, although the thought is not new, that
consciousness then cannot be limited to separate beings, but as far as I can
see this is a necessary conclusion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Terry Firma |
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: It seems strange maybe, although the thought is not new, that
consciousness then cannot be limited to separate beings, but as far as I
can
see this is a necessary conclusion.
I would suggest you read Descates' Discourse on Method, some Aristotle and
Plato, and get hold of an introductory Logic text. Note that you can't
really prove what you have stated above. It is speculative.
Well, I did the above mentioned years ago...
And could you substantiate your opinion about my attempted proof? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Terry Firma |
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: is necessary. what if gravity was 1,000 times stronger than what it is?
we would
be limited to pin sized brains, not enough to marvel at physics. and why
couldn't
it be 1,000 times more? only 10^3, is that luck? why matter AND
radiation? life could
exist without us seeing, radiation sure makes its more viewable. not only
do we sit
in a matrix of matter with deterministic principles propelling it through
time, a wad
load of photons bounces of every point of it in every direction so it can
be internally
mapped from any near location.
On our side is the smartest man Chris Langran, the highest IQ score with
his work
on CTMU, that the world works according to grammars like a living
computer.
Good Luck!
Herc
Thanks for interesting information. It certainly adds some weight to the
claim that the world is perfect... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pmailkeey |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:23:09 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
:)the point is the machinery of life is so complicated. if osmosis was not a property
:)of fluids no water could reach plant cells, a simple facet of physics we take for
:)granted, yet without it ~ no life.
Why Jim ? It might be life, but not as we know it.
:)you could list 1,000 conveniences around you on top of what
:)is necessary. what if gravity was 1,000 times stronger than what it is? we would
:)be limited to pin sized brains, not enough to marvel at physics.
Unless brains developed out of lighter material or otherwise designed
to withstand such a force. We may not have come out of the water - to
allow that to support the weight.
and why couldn't
:)it be 1,000 times more? only 10^3, is that luck?
We'd have picked another planet to live on.
--
Comm again, Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pmailkeey |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:23:09 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
:)the point is the machinery of life is so complicated. if osmosis was not a property
:)of fluids no water could reach plant cells, a simple facet of physics we take for
:)granted, yet without it ~ no life.
Why Jim ? It might be life, but not as we know it.
:)you could list 1,000 conveniences around you on top of what
:)is necessary. what if gravity was 1,000 times stronger than what it is? we would
:)be limited to pin sized brains, not enough to marvel at physics.
Unless brains developed out of lighter material or otherwise designed
to withstand such a force. We may not have come out of the water - to
allow that to support the weight.
and why couldn't
:)it be 1,000 times more? only 10^3, is that luck?
We'd have picked another planet to live on.
--
Comm again, Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pmailkeey |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:11:01 +0100, "Terry Firma"
<terry.firma@jeg.er.online.no> wrote:
:)Thanks for interesting information. It certainly adds some weight to the
:)claim that the world is perfect...
Perfact for what ? That's the difficult bit.
--
Comm again, Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tarald Andresen |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: :)Thanks for interesting information. It certainly adds some weight to the
:)claim that the world is perfect...
Perfact for what ? That's the difficult bit.
Well, perfect for creating, life, consciousness, meaningful existence, or
so, maybe... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tarald Andresen |
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: :)Thanks for interesting information. It certainly adds some weight to the
:)claim that the world is perfect...
Perfact for what ? That's the difficult bit.
Well, perfect for creating, life, consciousness, meaningful existence, or
so, maybe... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| pmailkeey |
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 5:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 04:53:50 +0100, "Tarald Andresen"
<tarald.a@jonline.no> wrote:
:)> :)Thanks for interesting information. It certainly adds some weight to the
 > :)claim that the world is perfect...
>
> Perfact for what ? That's the difficult bit.
:)Well, perfect for creating, life, consciousness, meaningful existence, or
:)so, maybe...
:)
I guess the Earth is at least a perfect geoid.
--
Comm again, Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:49 am
|
|