Manny Kim right -- and your "right now" tells of a missing date for the quote. On The Heights Of Despair was first published 1934 (fusimotors). I'd say it illustrates that even suicide bombers can borrow my quip "Je pense comme je pense, donc je suis qui je suis".
Ho capito, 😀vorresti diventare bella e splendente, affascinante come una supernova? Do not worry, you are beautiful already charming and bright as a supernova, Matt is very sure of this. ask him and you'll see that I have reason 😘
This is death in entropy. Here's my death: That ultimate goal, is the perfect model of the world, when the data generated by the model coincides exactly with the data generated by the world - when I see no differences between the model and reality, and the world just disappears to me subjectively, and that's the way, I would ideally prefer to 'die' - by truly understanding everything, and making nothing left to know.
Mindey I. This is the dream of classical physics to which elementary physics education as well as (more recently) video games invite. The unification project is one of its expressions, that of capturing all of physics in a unique fundamental equation from which all the others derive. I guess the relation to dying -- that's new to me -- may somehow represent the idea of "uploading" self into a computer simulation that would for all purposes be equal to the real world. Not really death, then.
Mindey I. Boris Borcic The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. This is an inevitable process. Once it will reach the stage, when no longer be uneven distribution of energy. There will be impossible to take and dissipate any energy – because the scattering will be maximized. Long before this stage there will not possible to exist for any complicated system. Life and consciousness is a change. After dissipation of all energy there will be not any change. No biological life, no machines, no computers, no light, no black holes, no matter. Nothing – but evenly distributed energy fields. One can call it the "death of everything". And it is inevitable… But before that happens, is there possible to create a model of the whole world? Can someone describe and simulate the entire reality? No. This is impossible… It has been proven that system can not recognize and describe himself. We are part of the Universe. It is not possible, for a part, to describe the whole. No model and no any simulation can fully describe the whole world.
Mariusz Rozpędek being equal or equivalent to one of its own strict subset or substructure is the definition of infinity or infinite objects... that mathematicians routinely study. It's certainly not by itself evidence of inconsistency.
Boris Borcic Infinity has no a physical sense. Mathematics is a product of the human mind. And infinity is an creation of mathematics. Moreover, infinity is not "routinely" studied by mathematicians. Among those, who are doing this, most lost their mind…
Mariusz Rozpędek Nonsense. Archimedes' principle is about the most involved physics you can do without mathematical limits. Elementary reminders: mathematical infinities are involved in the definition of limits, and limits are involved in the definition of derivatives, and derivatives are involved in the definition of speed, acceleration, momentum and the like. What physics you can do without directly or indirectly involving these latter concepts is very limited.
Please note as well that although you chose to address a uniform lecture to both me and Mindey I. it's not the case that I defend the view Mindey advertised. On the contrary, I just laid down the background of why and how I came to object to it, while only discretely hinting that I'd more concretely argue against what I called "dream". So it is not because I defend that view that I raise refutations against your argumentation against it, but rather because I perceive the latter as (1) incorporating nonsense, and (2) constitutive of a misconstruction* of the respective positions of the three of us.
(*was it not for my spellchecker, I'd write misconstrual)
Mariusz Rozpędek Beyond just the matter of numbers, infinities and of other things known to belong to it, mathematics is at the core more about discourse and argumentation that's not disputing aims but articulation of aim and sub-aim. Means-end analysis, applied to knowledge. That's "God" if you want. Assuming peace over aims, the most powerful adversary to a normative core of civil communication that would revere this "God", is adversity that wants (or like fights for) the domination and authority of a Single Universal Narrative (SUN).
Boris Borcic I repeat: infinity "exist" only in our mind. I talk to physicists. For physicist infinity is synonymous of his defeat. This is the result of calculation, which tells him that the problem defies mathematical description. Infinity means impossibility to describe. It says, that a particular problem can not be described by the language of mathematics. Because mathematics is the language. Language created by the people. It is a derivative of our mind – and contains, in itself, limitations of our mind. Infinity is obviously a part of mathematics, but in the physical world it does not make sense. For example what is the physical meaning of "infinite density" of matter in a black hole? After all, we can measure the masses of black holes and they all are finite… What is the physical meaning of infinitesimals? Infinitely small entities do not exist in nature. Everything that exists is energy. The energy always exist in quanta. There is no any "infinitely small" portion of anything. Most physicists believe that the concept of infinity is convenient to imagine the universe, but – in the real world – there is no infinity. No real measurement will ever be equal to infinity.
Boris Borcic I do not want any god. Deities do not exist. Mathematics has proved that he could not prove itself. It proved, that no any system can self-prove their correctness. Mathematics also did not prove its own consistency. It is imperfect. It is not a god. It is imperfect and limited communication medium of finite beings. The gods do not exist…
Mariusz Rozpędek Issues become muddled when people confuse the disputing over how to put it with the disputing over what's the case,... A funny thing is how people prompt to lecture about not confusing (a) the map for (b) the territory, often enough reveal blind to any need to distinguish between (A) disagreeing over the map and (B) disagreeing over the territory.
Are you trying to say that my putting scare quotes around that name or "god" was insufficient to convey that I was alluding to a godless what's-the-case? Or that the "if you want" next to it was insufficient to convey that you were invited to neglect that "god"-naming clause if it didn't help, and consider in that case only the rest of what I was saying, as if the clause wasn't there?
You typically homed on the cheapest point to score and that allowed you to feign having addressed any discernible challenge in my points. You quite deserve reminding that saying (or believing) that gods don't exist is one thing, and properly behaving as if gods didn't exist is another.
Ok guys...the quote I used here has nothing to do with god, math or kamikazes. Simply a desire to understand life from a different perspective...if it was possible. Also, I like Cioran's acidic writings.
Fine, Corina Marinescu. I took this as an opportunity to discuss the language, using a language foreign to me. Perhaps it was a mistake… :-( I have no intention to ruin your post.
Sorry, Corina Marinescu I guess the gif loop incites to flare ups, but let's find to this stupid superfluous round (my bad!) around the quoted name of god, the bittersweet utility to provide counter-evidence to the however beautifully sung prayer, "Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood".
(could brand a flavor of atheism with tenet that names and nouns for gods cause severe misunderstandings and for this reason better to uniformly avoid, including for metaphorical or analogical intention. An heuristic whatever).
La citation de Cioran fournit une peinture partielle plausible de l'état d'esprit ou d'âme d'un attaquant suicide comme ceux d'il y a quinze ans. Je concède la coincidence mais c'en est une qui saille autant que saille le Coran qui vient en soustrayant i à Cioran. Soit: qui saille assez pour qu'il faille à l'ignorer comme un effort spécial.
Probably not the most tactful thing to say in some parts of the Middle East right now
ReplyDeleteManny Kim right -- and your "right now" tells of a missing date for the quote. On The Heights Of Despair was first published 1934 (fusimotors). I'd say it illustrates that even suicide bombers can borrow my quip "Je pense comme je pense, donc je suis qui je suis".
ReplyDeleteHo capito, 😀vorresti diventare bella e splendente, affascinante come una supernova?
ReplyDeleteDo not worry, you are beautiful already charming and bright as a supernova, Matt is very sure of this. ask him and you'll see that I have reason 😘
Like Thermostellar Bomb #20 (in the movie "Dark Star") – when she convinced that sole purpose of his life is to explode… :-)
ReplyDeleteThis is death in entropy. Here's my death: That ultimate goal, is the perfect model of the world, when the data generated by the model coincides exactly with the data generated by the world - when I see no differences between the model and reality, and the world just disappears to me subjectively, and that's the way, I would ideally prefer to 'die' - by truly understanding everything, and making nothing left to know.
ReplyDeleteMindey I. This is the dream of classical physics to which elementary physics education as well as (more recently) video games invite. The unification project is one of its expressions, that of capturing all of physics in a unique fundamental equation from which all the others derive. I guess the relation to dying -- that's new to me -- may somehow represent the idea of "uploading" self into a computer simulation that would for all purposes be equal to the real world. Not really death, then.
ReplyDeleteMindey I. Boris Borcic The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. This is an inevitable process. Once it will reach the stage, when no longer be uneven distribution of energy. There will be impossible to take and dissipate any energy – because the scattering will be maximized. Long before this stage there will not possible to exist for any complicated system. Life and consciousness is a change. After dissipation of all energy there will be not any change. No biological life, no machines, no computers, no light, no black holes, no matter. Nothing – but evenly distributed energy fields. One can call it the "death of everything". And it is inevitable…
ReplyDeleteBut before that happens, is there possible to create a model of the whole world? Can someone describe and simulate the entire reality? No. This is impossible… It has been proven that system can not recognize and describe himself. We are part of the Universe. It is not possible, for a part, to describe the whole. No model and no any simulation can fully describe the whole world.
Mariusz Rozpędek being equal or equivalent to one of its own strict subset or substructure is the definition of infinity or infinite objects... that mathematicians routinely study. It's certainly not by itself evidence of inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic Infinity has no a physical sense. Mathematics is a product of the human mind. And infinity is an creation of mathematics. Moreover, infinity is not "routinely" studied by mathematicians. Among those, who are doing this, most lost their mind…
ReplyDeleteMariusz Rozpędek Nonsense. Archimedes' principle is about the most involved physics you can do without mathematical limits. Elementary reminders: mathematical infinities are involved in the definition of limits, and limits are involved in the definition of derivatives, and derivatives are involved in the definition of speed, acceleration, momentum and the like. What physics you can do without directly or indirectly involving these latter concepts is very limited.
ReplyDeletePlease note as well that although you chose to address a uniform lecture to both me and Mindey I. it's not the case that I defend the view Mindey advertised. On the contrary, I just laid down the background of why and how I came to object to it, while only discretely hinting that I'd more concretely argue against what I called "dream". So it is not because I defend that view that I raise refutations against your argumentation against it, but rather because I perceive the latter as (1) incorporating nonsense, and (2) constitutive of a misconstruction* of the respective positions of the three of us.
(*was it not for my spellchecker, I'd write misconstrual)
Mariusz Rozpędek Beyond just the matter of numbers, infinities and of other things known to belong to it, mathematics is at the core more about discourse and argumentation that's not disputing aims but articulation of aim and sub-aim. Means-end analysis, applied to knowledge. That's "God" if you want. Assuming peace over aims, the most powerful adversary to a normative core of civil communication that would revere this "God", is adversity that wants (or like fights for) the domination and authority of a Single Universal Narrative (SUN).
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic I repeat: infinity "exist" only in our mind. I talk to physicists. For physicist infinity is synonymous of his defeat. This is the result of calculation, which tells him that the problem defies mathematical description. Infinity means impossibility to describe. It says, that a particular problem can not be described by the language of mathematics. Because mathematics is the language. Language created by the people. It is a derivative of our mind – and contains, in itself, limitations of our mind.
ReplyDeleteInfinity is obviously a part of mathematics, but in the physical world it does not make sense. For example what is the physical meaning of "infinite density" of matter in a black hole? After all, we can measure the masses of black holes and they all are finite… What is the physical meaning of infinitesimals? Infinitely small entities do not exist in nature. Everything that exists is energy. The energy always exist in quanta. There is no any "infinitely small" portion of anything.
Most physicists believe that the concept of infinity is convenient to imagine the universe, but – in the real world – there is no infinity. No real measurement will ever be equal to infinity.
Boris Borcic I do not want any god. Deities do not exist.
ReplyDeleteMathematics has proved that he could not prove itself. It proved, that no any system can self-prove their correctness. Mathematics also did not prove its own consistency. It is imperfect. It is not a god. It is imperfect and limited communication medium of finite beings.
The gods do not exist…
Mariusz Rozpędek Issues become muddled when people confuse the disputing over how to put it with the disputing over what's the case,... A funny thing is how people prompt to lecture about not confusing (a) the map for (b) the territory, often enough reveal blind to any need to distinguish between (A) disagreeing over the map and (B) disagreeing over the territory.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to say that my putting scare quotes around that name or "god" was insufficient to convey that I was alluding to a godless what's-the-case? Or that the "if you want" next to it was insufficient to convey that you were invited to neglect that "god"-naming clause if it didn't help, and consider in that case only the rest of what I was saying, as if the clause wasn't there?
You typically homed on the cheapest point to score and that allowed you to feign having addressed any discernible challenge in my points. You quite deserve reminding that saying (or believing) that gods don't exist is one thing, and properly behaving as if gods didn't exist is another.
Ok guys...the quote I used here has nothing to do with god, math or kamikazes. Simply a desire to understand life from a different perspective...if it was possible.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like Cioran's acidic writings.
Fine, Corina Marinescu. I took this as an opportunity to discuss the language, using a language foreign to me. Perhaps it was a mistake… :-(
ReplyDeleteI have no intention to ruin your post.
Sorry, Corina Marinescu I guess the gif loop incites to flare ups, but let's find to this stupid superfluous round (my bad!) around the quoted name of god, the bittersweet utility to provide counter-evidence to the however beautifully sung prayer, "Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood".
ReplyDelete(could brand a flavor of atheism with tenet that names and nouns for gods cause severe misunderstandings and for this reason better to uniformly avoid, including for metaphorical or analogical intention. An heuristic whatever).
La citation de Cioran fournit une peinture partielle plausible de l'état d'esprit ou d'âme d'un attaquant suicide comme ceux d'il y a quinze ans. Je concède la coincidence mais c'en est une qui saille autant que saille le Coran qui vient en soustrayant i à Cioran. Soit: qui saille assez pour qu'il faille à l'ignorer comme un effort spécial.