• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Simple math.. lol jk

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
Not sure if i get where you want me to get going.... but it applies to all life.

the .999_ can represent any enclosed system (tomato, human, expanding universe) which is growing, the inner componants are of an indefinite number, but on the outside it is just perceived as 1.


not sure what you want since i don't know anyhting besides time:p but maybe on a bigger picture, everything is interconnected through magnitism/ or a stringlike substance(lol). I don't know. But i know behind th 1 divided by 3 has major significance not only because of common sense, but because Telsa even said "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." i'll be forever researching. 1 divided by 3 is .333, .666, .999. aka the trinity. really interesting

Time, though, seems to be one thing that can manipulate both an "inner system" and an "outer system". If time is irrelevant, and it does exist, then wtf? There's a joke that goes around...

In fact, there is a story circulating among scientists of an immigrant to America who has lost his watch. He walks up to a man on a New York street and asks, "Please, Sir, what is time?" The scientist replies, "I'm sorry, you'll have to ask a philosopher. I'm just a physicist."

Funny thing is, philosophers don't seem to have anymore an idea than anyone else.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
That's not really a good example, because in that case, the truth of the statement is predicated on relative velocity, which means before you can call it true or false, you need to define the observer's velocity.

With .9repeating = 1, there is no variable condition to predicate the truth or falsehood. They are literally synonyms -- they refer to exactly the same concept.

Exactly. It's the same concept. Before you can evaluate .9repeating = 1, as true or false, you have to have a reference point. But the "reference point" can be both "inside" or "outside", neither of these points are invalid, just different. They serve different purposes. So, depending on your reference point .9repeating=1 can be true, or false, depending.
 

Munchies

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
468
MBTI Type
XNXP
Enneagram
OMG
Instinctual Variant
sx
Time, though, seems to be one thing that can manipulate both an "inner system" and an "outer system". If time is irrelevant, and it does exist, then wtf? There's a joke that goes around...



Funny thing is, philosophers don't seem to have anymore an idea than anyone else.

It is observed in the double slit experiment with electrons that observation has a direct effect with the trajectory of the electron. Without the observation, the electron will hit the wall at infinite potential going anythrough both slits or none or any other potential. With the observation, it allows the electron to flow through the double slit as if it were flowing on the wave of light, since it hits the board in the same way the light moves through the double slit.

My guess is the electron (or inner system) is running on it's own time (who knows, maybe this universe is an electron:p). The observation made the electron have only one possible trajectory. I think the electron has infinite trajectory potential because it is already running on it's inner clock/time, so on the outside there is 0 or infinite time unless time is observed upon it(infinite and 0 are the same number, there. it explains why there is infinite potential on the outside i think).

Without observation, the electron has infinite possibility. My understanding is that our reality or unviverse or timline is being held together by observation. It was never fully known what conciousness has to do with the universe and i plan to think of it some more :p
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Indeed, a lot of people don't understand math. For example, they don't understand that it's a self-referential system of notation.

That's not really a good example, because in that case, the truth of the statement is predicated on relative velocity, which means before you can call it true or false, you need to define the observer's velocity.

With .9repeating = 1, there is no variable condition to predicate the truth or falsehood. They are literally synonyms -- they refer to exactly the same concept.

Exactly. This is as insightful as discovering that a triangle has three sides.

Exactly. It's the same concept. Before you can evaluate .9repeating = 1, as true or false, you have to have a reference point. But the "reference point" can be both "inside" or "outside", neither of these points are invalid, just different. They serve different purposes. So, depending on your reference point .9repeating=1 can be true, or false, depending.

That's not how math works. In fact, math immediately stops working when you decide that you will apply the rules variably depending on your purposes.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
That's not how math works. In fact, math immediately stops working when you decide that you will apply the rules variably depending on your purposes.
1. I noticed. It sucks.
2. I was using "math" to illustrate a concept that can be understood as inherent in the nature of any system of thought...including math.
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp
.999_ is forever expanding, but on an outside perspective, it is just 1. Just like how this universe is infinitly expanding, but on the outside would just be perceived as 1 sphere. So to say that .999 = 1 is false and true at the same time. the .999_ and the 1 are the same thing but on different dimentions, the .999_ being the expanding inner universe, and the 1 being an outside view.


However, they teach you that .999_= 1... they do not teach you the multidimentional thinking so you must be skeptical of education.

So yes .999_ = 1, but you were never taught to think on such a scale. If you can visualize it you will realize an infinite pattern.

Actually, I would find it quite strange if my math teacher suddenly came with philosophical explanations and analogies for such concepts. The fact that the infinite patter you associate with .999_ could be thought of as similar to our universe expanding is not a matter of pure mathematics (as I see it), reason why this thread's in the Philosophy and Spirituality category. The concept of an "infinite pattern" also brought to my mind fractals, which also have a mathematical basis. Education (or the educational system, if you prefer) could be blamed for several things, but not making such correlation between distinct subjects (correlations which may also be controversial) is not one of them.
On the other hand, philosophy is a subject that, as studied in school, focuses on many other aspects.

There is an interesting BBC documentary, "How long is a piece of string?" in which one man explores quantum mechanics. He speaks with various people involved in science at different levels and he learns that the piece of string he wants to measure could also be infinite (if we think of it as having infinite patterns inside itself in a way similar to fractals)

I'd also have to say they teach you that .999_=1, so yes, you were taught to think on such a scale. They may not say it in a blunt manner, since this equality lays under a question mark, so to speak. This thread reminded me of the rather complex operation of dividing by 0. You could say that x/0 equals infinity, although you were earlier taught that you cannot divide by 0 and concrete thinking tells you that doing so would be both impossible and pointless (mathematics is abstract, after all).

I wouldn't really say that we weren't taught to "think on such a scale", going deep into this "theory" simply does not lead to much if we have math in mind. Philosophically speaking, you can do that in order to put your mind to work and you could also read books by mathematicians and/or philosopher that treat such perspectives.
 

Munchies

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
468
MBTI Type
XNXP
Enneagram
OMG
Instinctual Variant
sx
Actually, I would find it quite strange if my math teacher suddenly came with philosophical explanations and analogies for such concepts. The fact that the infinite patter you associate with .999_ could be thought of as similar to our universe expanding is not a matter of pure mathematics (as I see it), reason why this thread's in the Philosophy and Spirituality category. The concept of an "infinite pattern" also brought to my mind fractals, which also have a mathematical basis. Education (or the educational system, if you prefer) could be blamed for several things, but not making such correlation between distinct subjects (correlations which may also be controversial) is not one of them.
On the other hand, philosophy is a subject that, as studied in school, focuses on many other aspects. You are only taught accedemics in university, it must be taught to lower grades. They are highly capable. A childs mind is much more open than that of an adult. I think a more intuitive way of thinking should be taught and more individal improvement focus rather than grades and class average.

There is an interesting BBC documentary, "How long is a piece of string?" in which one man explores quantum mechanics. He speaks with various people involved in science at different levels and he learns that the piece of string he wants to measure could also be infinite (if we think of it as having infinite patterns inside itself in a way similar to fractals) Yes and you can never cut two peices of wood the exact same size since the - magnification seems to go on for infinity.

I'd also have to say they teach you that .999_=1, so yes, you were taught to think on such a scale. They may not say it in a blunt manner, since this equality lays under a question mark, so to speak. This thread reminded me of the rather complex operation of dividing by 0. You could say that x/0 equals infinity, although you were earlier taught that you cannot divide by 0 and concrete thinking tells you that doing so would be both impossible and pointless (mathematics is abstract, after all).

I wouldn't really say that we weren't taught to "think on such a scale", going deep into this "theory" simply does not lead to much if we have math in mind. Philosophically speaking, you can do that in order to put your mind to work and you could also read books by mathematicians and/or philosopher that treat such perspectives. we weren't, you had a point in your first paragragh when you said that bit about corelations, but it is controversial. Philosophicaly speaking, nobody really knows anyhting for sure, at all. Since there is not an absolute science towards what conciousness has to do with reality and also no absolute sciencec for anything quantum... so common conceptions of math is irrelevant when trying to seek the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life. Because deeper conceptions can always be realized. This thread is merly speculation on a subject not know to man (to my perception), so old concepts of "accedemia" are irrelevant when trying to uncover new things (that's to that infj guy)

I know it's quite a subject to teach. I was never taught that 0 was just as infinite as + infinity. Indefinite. I would of at least like to have been put in a gifted class so i wouldn't be learning the petty repetitive memorization tasks. I honestly saw a lot of shit while in highschool with dead end theories just to block further inquiry of thought... but I understand that education shouldnt be made to make everyone into genuis' because then who will take out the trash and work at shitty dead end jobs.


and i don't trust education to begin with. The imperial system is shit and is based on memorization, no intuition involved. Im glad i was taught the metric system in canada. But here in canada we don't get taught about poltics, but the government encourages christian teachings.Nothing of poltical science( because there is no science to Politics it's all bs) I could go on
 

Daemon Corax

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
70
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp


Philosophicaly speaking, nobody really knows anyhting for sure, at all. Since there is not an absolute science towards what conciousness has to do with reality and also no absolute sciencec for anything quantum... so common conceptions of math is irrelevant when trying to seek the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life. Because deeper conceptions can always be realized.

Seeking the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life is something you should do for yourself, the contradictions that arise between different philosophical doctrines is one good reason for studying philosophy. It opens up your mind to possibilities you might have never taken into consideration and it helps you develop a system of your own (I don't think one can fully identify themselves with the thoughts expressed by somebody else through their writings). I think the philosophy of mathematics to be of great interest to you and you're probably learning about it already.

However, I would avoid making connections between, say...the result of some math operations and the trinity! It's way too much for me. While doing so can lead to something you may call "deeper conceptions ", I find it rather irrelevant, to be honest. Going deeper into a problem actually means finding different approaches to it, so it's relative. That doesn't mean that the most unusual theories are also the deepest ones, the notions of "deep" and "shallow", although often used, don't always have a fixed meaning. I'd probably say that the "deepest answers" are the ones which, in my opinion, are more logical, but this involves a certain degree of relativity and perspectivism (I'm a fan of Nietzsche!). Thus, I cannot call one answer or question deeper than the other, since I cannot be sure of what somebody else would think of it. As an example, logical explanation appeal more to a Thinker than to a Feeler.

Thus, what I'd call my deepest reasoning may seem shallow to others and, confronted with their different views, I may either agree with them or not. In this case, finding arguments for the existence of God by exploring mathematics, for instance, is something I simply find absurd, while others could see this as a search for deeper answers.

I'm from Europe, so I've been taught the metric system in the 2nd grade, I think. The government encouraging Christian teachings is a common situation in countries where this religion is prevalent. I'm fond of the secularization that especially countries in Northern Europe have implemented and I hope every state on Earth understands that, well, God shouldn't be dragged into all kind of stuff and subjects and sciences and bah!
 

Munchies

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
468
MBTI Type
XNXP
Enneagram
OMG
Instinctual Variant
sx
Seeking the deepest answers to the deepest questions of life is something you should do for yourself, the contradictions that arise between different philosophical doctrines is one good reason for studying philosophy. It opens up your mind to possibilities you might have never taken into consideration and it helps you develop a system of your own (I don't think one can fully identify themselves with the thoughts expressed by somebody else through their writings). I think the philosophy of mathematics to be of great interest to you and you're probably learning about it already.

However, I would avoid making connections between, say...the result of some math operations and the trinity! It's way too much for me. While doing so can lead to something you may call "deeper conceptions ", I find it rather irrelevant, to be honest. Going deeper into a problem actually means finding different approaches to it, so it's relative. That doesn't mean that the most unusual theories are also the deepest ones, the notions of "deep" and "shallow", although often used, don't always have a fixed meaning. I'd probably say that the "deepest answers" are the ones which, in my opinion, are more logical, but this involves a certain degree of relativity and perspectivism (I'm a fan of Nietzsche!). Thus, I cannot call one answer or question deeper than the other, since I cannot be sure of what somebody else would think of it. As an example, logical explanation appeal more to a Thinker than to a Feeler.

Thus, what I'd call my deepest reasoning may seem shallow to others and, confronted with their different views, I may either agree with them or not. In this case, finding arguments for the existence of God by exploring mathematics, for instance, is something I simply find absurd, while others could see this as a search for deeper answers.

I'm from Europe, so I've been taught the metric system in the 2nd grade, I think. The government encouraging Christian teachings is a common situation in countries where this religion is prevalent. I'm fond of the secularization that especially countries in Northern Europe have implemented and I hope every state on Earth understands that, well, God shouldn't be dragged into all kind of stuff and subjects and sciences and bah!

i agree with everythign yuo say so i won't argue it. Although i wan't directly assuming a connection to god. It was just speculation.I was trying to find another perspective on the subject

I plan on learning as i post because it seems to be the best way for me as it get's my creative juices running. I've been doing it for a while on this subject and made great progress after 2 years. I know i throw a lot of things out there that are very abstract and seemingly uncconected(or slightly connected) but it's hard to express my thoughts and am getting more clarity from practicing my thoughts in ways like this.
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
This might not really be on-topic, at least, with the current trend of posts, but here are my musings on mathematics for what it's worth:

First, numbers are bullshit. They don't exist. I am sitting here, in my room, looking at my ceiling fan. I notice it has five blades. But wait, my fan is one object, the blades are five, coming to form one. In a sense, 5 = 1. But what equals the five? Tiny bits of metal, plastic...chemical structures I can't see, et cetera. 1 = 5 = ? = millions. It's all about frame of reference, kind of like what's been mentioned before. .9 = 1, depending on the viewing angle, but even having a viewing angle is kind of bullshit, because there's nothing that can distinguish one thing from another beyond abstract barriers that we make as individuals.

One thing that's bothered me is the concept of fractions. Suppose I have one loaf of bread and I were to cut it in halves and I gave you one half. We might represent this as you having 1/2 of a loaf of bread, but isn't that incorrect on some macroeconomic scale? In actuality you possess x particles, which combined represents some bread. There can only really be whole numbers right? I think part of the problem we run into with mathematics, even in higher levels, is that there's no real lowest-common-denominator, so to speak.

While this is a bit scattered, I apologize, I have often thought about the problem of trying to exit a room by closing half the distance between yourself and the exit. I always thought it was a ludicrous problem--people don't move not-finitely whereas in this example, they do. But that's the problem with this thought experiment, it's just infinite division on a theoretical level, but in actuality, there must be some finite lowest common denominator or unit of measurement. I think the current way we look at numbers can be comparable to the difference in calculation between pints, quarts, and gallons. We dub the number 1 to be the smallest number, but it seems we tend to be talking about gallons, when there's actually 4 quarts or 8 pints. Without some bonafide smallest unit of measurement, it's kind of meaningless to talk about numbers, no?

Can the smallest unit of measurement ever be discovered? Something that cannot be divided or made any smaller? If so, how would it effect the mathematical world?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
While this is a bit scattered, I apologize, I have often thought about the problem of trying to exit a room by closing half the distance between yourself and the exit. I always thought it was a ludicrous problem--people don't move not-finitely whereas in this example, they do. But that's the problem with this thought experiment, it's just infinite division on a theoretical level, but in actuality, there must be some finite lowest common denominator or unit of measurement.

This is a classic paradox. The problem is that having a smallest unit of space-time doesn't actually make any more sense than traversing infinitely divisible dimensions. Infinite division should mean we can't go anywhere, but an LCD of space is pretty much incomprehensible. Exactly how would that work? The problem you describe here is deeper than math. It is not strictly an erroneous product of how math makes us define things.

I think the current way we look at numbers can be comparable to the difference in calculation between pints, quarts, and gallons. We dub the number 1 to be the smallest number, but it seems we tend to be talking about gallons, when there's actually 4 quarts or 8 pints. Without some bonafide smallest unit of measurement, it's kind of meaningless to talk about numbers, no?

No one with a decent sense of math would simply call 1 the smallest number. Instead, try a phrase like "One is the first non-zero number in the natural numbers".

Anyhow, not being able to reduce to a smallest measurement does not make talking about numbers pointless, at all. Have you ever seen equations done with infinity? They're fun. The point is that you don't need this to be finite for math to have a purpose. In fact, how do you think a lack of smallest number would make talking about numbers pointless?

Can the smallest unit of measurement ever be discovered? Something that cannot be divided or made any smaller? If so, how would it effect the mathematical world?

In math, no such number can be "discovered". You don't discover anything in math, every you can find must of automatically followed from the rules set out in the first place. In terms of math, we know that as long as you accept rational numbers, you can always divide a number. This is a concept that clearly plays itself out in your head. How could you find a number that's an exception?
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
In math, no such number can be "discovered". You don't discover anything in math, every you can find must of automatically followed from the rules set out in the first place. In terms of math, we know that as long as you accept rational numbers, you can always divide a number. This is a concept that clearly plays itself out in your head. How could you find a number that's an exception?

I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?

Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?

Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.

You can't blame math for the inherent subjectivity of the human perspective. It's an internally consistent system, and that's the best we can hope for.

Also, think of numbers as ratios, not indivisible units -- it solves your problem of the fan being 5 or the fan being 1. The 5=1 in your first post is just a framing error, not a problem with math.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm not saying that the methodology of math is bullshit. I'm saying the foundation on which it stands is bullshit. There really isn't any such thing as multiplication or division, is there? It's an abstract tool. One I argue isn't entirely compatible with the physical universe.

Is infinity nonrational? Can you divide infinity?

Back to Wikipedia.

Look at the fun things you can do with infinity! The golden phrase in there is "countably infinite". :laugh:

But really, there are perfectly valuable equations that work with things far more ridiculous than infinity. Like, say, numbers with a negative square. Again, the problem emerges if you try approaching math too intuitively.

Math would imply that there's an infinite number of infinite smallnesses of space between one point and another...however if we can even manage to travel at all, then either being infinitely small is finite and could be measured, or there might be no such thing as movement...or separation.

At what point does infinite become finite? That would likely be the lcd of physical mathematics.

Infinite doesn't become finite. There's nothing we could discover in physics that would make that happen because it is simply an inherent definition of an abstract concept.

If something is comes to an minimum size, it simply isn't infinite, it does not make infinite smallness finite, because it is not infinite smallness by definition.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
5864509.jpg
 
Top