For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Indeed! Protagoras. Perspectivist. Pragmatists and the whole lot!
I am not saying constants cannot be represented in a computational world, but rather constants are observed approximately by localizing specific facets of them and calling these sets of movements laws. Constants are subject to multiple interpretations.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:36 amCan you give me example of those patterns?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:32 am Kolmogorov complexity observes computation but does not factor in the replication of certain universals in nature that do not equate to a Russian doll type of movement. Certain patterns appear not just in nature, but also human behavior, replication of numbers, geometric forms, etc.
1) branching patter in trees/leaves/roots, rivers, streams, blood vessels, lightning, etc,
2) frequency as wave paterms in oceans, winds, mountains/hills/earth, fire.
3) Person mimicking another person's behavior (emotions, conversation, bodily movement)
4) trilateral, quadlaterals, etc being the replication of points and lines.
5) Replication of numbers, ad infinitum, through 1, 2, 3.
6) etc.
From the paradigm of quantum physics any mention of infinities is a religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
"From the paradigm of" is a relativistic measurement considering quantum physics and its defining process require other paradigms that necessitate infinity, specifically math. 1+1=2 must always be the same ad-infinitum.
Not sure what you mean by that. Constants can be represented in a computational world too. Any finite value can be expressed in a computational world.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:04 am The law of entropy observes change as dissolution. However if law "x" observes both the dissolution and reforming of properties than a different observation of change occurs allowing a separate framework of reasoning.
The creation of laws does not negate constants.
Mathematical constants are not.
From a type-theoretical background. If you are talking about a different interpretation, you are necessarily talking about a different construct.
Use is subject to time, as ideas are subject to group belief with group belief embodied in political belief changing with time under a constant ebb and flow.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:38 amIndeed! Protagoras. Perspectivist. Pragmatists and the whole lot!
That's how long it takes to change society. That's how long it takes to formalise/actualise an idea to the point it has actual, measurable impact on the world.
Until other people can USE your idea in practice - it's no good to anyone but you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
So is human survival. Which is why simple-but-useful models (Occam's parsimony) are preferred by science, despite their Platonistic form.
Actually mathematical constants can change. Looking at a variable, the first assumption is that the equation forms the variable, but certain variables may actually form the equation.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:48 amMathematical constants are not.
If you are talking about constants that are subjects to interpretation, are you perhaps talking about phenomena/phenomenology? e.g constants of human experience.
All life it dependent upon objective continuous limits as life exists though multiple geometric limits.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:00 amSo is human survival. Which is why simple-but-useful models (Occam's parsimony) are preferred by science, despite their Platonistic form.
Being alive is a pre-requisite for having ideas.
etc. as the list goes on.Formally: That is a definitional contradiction.
Sure. You are just observing scientific reduction . By its very nature - science can only measure output (consequences) not ontology. So Planck's constant will always be 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg/s. Only one day we may understand the reasons/mechanism as to WHY.
Yes. Naturally - model errors are everywhere. And 'constants' are only as constant as our measuring tools allow for precision.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:02 am I have a thread in the math section where a variable results in an infinite set of equations, with the variable simply being a localization of some constant.
Infinite fractals show numbers having an element of perpetual change where the interpretation of the number through "rounding" affects the answer.
Entropy cancels itself out as well. At the end of the day it breaks down to continuums where the tools form the results but the tools do not allow for perfect definitions along a long enough timeline. Technology is not just subject to entropy but is a physicalization of physical wants which Are always in flux. Technology is an illusion, it is strictly just localizing natural forms of change (resource consumption and transfer through environment) and speeding up or slowing down the change relative to natural cycles. Technology is the manipulation of time, with all things as moving being composed of time, in an effort to progress to point zero.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:18 amFormally: That is a definitional contradiction.
Epistemically: sure. Something believed to be a constant, can turn out to be otherwise.
formalism is subject to the fallacy of equivocation and bandwagon. There is no universerally agreed upon standard for mathematics.
Sure. You are just observing scientific reduction . By its very nature - science can only measure output (consequences) not ontology. So Planck's constant will always be 6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg/s. Only one day we may understand the reasons/mechanism as to WHY.
statement of probability as this measurement is subject to the tools of the experiment. Planks constant is a reflection of technological change at minimum.
Yes. Naturally - model errors are everywhere. And 'constants' are only as constant as our measuring tools allow for precision.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:02 am I have a thread in the math section where a variable results in an infinite set of equations, with the variable simply being a localization of some constant.
Infinite fractals show numbers having an element of perpetual change where the interpretation of the number through "rounding" affects the answer.
And precision is about information. And information is all about entropy....
Not quite. Programming languages interpret themselves. They are deterministic and so nobody has to 'agree' on anything. it means what it means. There is no ambiguity, only incompleteness. Or a bug.
OK. We could get it more precise; OR we could define it as a statistical distribution with positive kurtosis/lower variance. That's how I think about all scientific output. Models with ever-narrower margin of error e.g lower variance.
Phenomenologically and epistemologically speaking entropy is identical to uncertainty. The moment you can differentiate two phenomena cancelling each other out (e.g make ANY empirical distinction) it stops being entropy/uncertainty.
Naturally. Those are our epistemic limits imposed by our current (mis)understanding of physics. Our knowledge is incomplete.
If you are talking about compressing it, it would require other dimensions (In the respect of world's, universes, etc.) to contain the compression and effectively we would be left in square one as we would be stuck trying to understand other universes as well.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:45 amNot quite. Programming languages interpret themselves. They are deterministic and so nobody has to 'agree' on anything. it means what it means. There is no ambiguity, only incompleteness. Or a bug.
And so it means exactly what the programmer intended it to mean. If it is 'wrong'. It's because the programmer didn't know any better.
How the programmer gets the feedback (new knowledge) that the algorithm is 'wrong' is a long discussion about the mechanisms of falsification...
No language is complete in and of itself as the axioms which determine it are not subject to the same rigor as the language itself and in these respects, because of the computer programmer, the computer will always maintain some degree of randomness in its calculations.
The language may result in a string of axioms, but this string as incomplete still leads to ambiguity. Euclidean axioms where deemed incomplete and the result was a new set of axioms which effectively gave a different perpsective.
[/color]
OK. We could get it more precise; OR we could define it as a statistical distribution with positive kurtosis/lower variance. That's how I think about all scientific output. Models with ever-narrower margin of error e.g loweperspective.
Ever narrower concept of error still leads to a paradox. As the information becomes more precise, and we build this technology on what is more precise, the information is relatively always the same considering we are left with a super task at this point where the ability for improvement is infinite, hence no real improvement is made only a form of perpetual change which speeds up.
Phenomenologically and epistemologically speaking entropy is identical to uncertainty. The moment you can differentiate two phenomena cancelling each other out (e.g make ANY empirical distinction) it stops being entropy/uncertainty.
Randomness is identical to uncertainty as approximation. Entropy is strictly dissolution and does not necessitate any other foundation than time. Entropy, as dissolution through void is not strictly an empirical law in the respect we cannot observe void....It does not necessitate two phenomenon canceling themselves out.
Naturally. Those are our epistemic limits imposed by our current (mis)understanding of physics. Our knowledge is incomplete.
I used to say that it will always be incomplete, but I am doubting this belief for a few months now.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
As far as I understand it states there are limits to computing power.
Since our universe has not yet collapsed into a black hole, then it is actually possible to compress it. So it has a pragmatic Kolmogorov complexity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogoro ... ompression