Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm It is a false premise as the paradigm of physical information is a conception of interpretation

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm along with the fact we don't fully understand the paradigm of physics yet not only due to its ever expanding nature but it in itself is probabilistic.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm 1. A = A → F

2. A = A → ((F = F) ∵ (F ∈ A))

3. (F → F) ∵ ((A → F) ∧ (F ∈ A))

4. (F → A) ∵ (F → F)

5. (A = (A → F) ∧ (F → A)) ∴ (A=(A=F) ∧ (A=A)=F)

6. A=F

7. (A=A)=(F=F) → (A,F)

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:36 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm It is a false premise as the paradigm of physical information is a conception of interpretation

Not really. It's a conception based on the limits of the human mind and the limits of the scientific epistemology. Either you can draw an empirical distinction or you can't.

And this is premised in the empirical aspect of time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm along with the fact we don't fully understand the paradigm of physics yet not only due to its ever expanding nature but it in itself is probabilistic.

Information is probabilistic.

That is a non-probabilistic statement.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm 1. A = A → F
A is equivalent to a process of movement towards F. Under stand "logic" A is equivalent to an implication to F, hence "A" is simultaneously a probabilistic function.

2. A = A → ((F = F) ∵ (F ∈ A))
Because A is a movement towards F, and F exists through A as an element of A, it shares the same properites of "A" and as such necessitates F=F considering "A = A" because of a progression towards F.



3. (F → F) ∵ ((A → F) ∧ (F ∈ A))
Because F exists as an extension of A, F progresses towards F because A progresses towards F.





4. (F → A) ∵ ((F → F) ∧ (F ∈ A))

F progresses towards A because F progresses towards F and F exists as an element of A. ***I had to modify this equation for further clarity.



5. (A = (A → F) ∧ (F → A)) ∴ (A=(A=F) ∧ (A=A)=F)

A is equivalent to a both A and F progressing towards each other, effectively making them both unified and intersecting, therefore A is equivalent to its equivalence to F (thereby making "A" a function, following point 1) while A as equal to A, as a function, makes it equivalent to F as a function of A progressing.

6. A=F

A and F are equivalent as both functions and non-functions, where as observed in point 1 A is equivalent to a continuous function.



7. (A=A)=(F=F) → (A,F)
The manifestation of A and F being equivalent as function directes them towards identities in there own right as well. Such all proof/programs exist through further proofs/programs as a proof/program in itself.

Go ahead and write the above in a regular language... I suspect the compiler/interpreter will throw an error at you because your grammar/semantics are inconsistent.

No, it is consistent but circular and self-referential. I will add the english equivalent to the above. If you have the answer, by all means provide it, but like you said below:



Proofs are programs.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence

An all programs are based upon some form of circularity or linear regress.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:37 pm That is a non-probabilistic statement

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm An all programs are based upon some form of circularity or linear regress.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:37 pm That is a non-probabilistic statement

Because anything I type that appears on this screen is a static symbol. All dynamics are lost.

I can write you an algorithm. Information is a probability-distribution of entropy.


Actually the dynamics are not lost in the empircal nature of basic everyday change as well as the progressive nature of one symbol to another, effectively making "all symbols" as not just connected but premised in a core foundational symbol.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:31 pm An all programs are based upon some form of circularity or linear regress.

There's no circularity in time. All programs progress through time.

Actually there is circularity in time when a variable is repeated. All lines, as composed of infinite points are composed of infinite circles as well.

And they need not halt. In fact - the most useful kind of programs (automata) is not supposed to halt. Ever.
It runs in an infinite loop of Observe-Orient-Decide-Act.

See point right above this one.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:52 pm Actually there is circularity in time when a variable is repeated. All lines, as composed of infinite points are composed of infinite circles as well

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:03 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:52 pm Actually there is circularity in time when a variable is repeated. All lines, as composed of infinite points are composed of infinite circles as well

That's an error stemming from the dualistic interpretation of the law of identity.

Not really. But I have a thread in here about the law of identity being circular as well.

All lines can be composed of infinite circles, where 1 line effectively is wider or smaller relative to another line. In simpler terms you can have a line of "x" width but relative to a line of much larger width, it will always appear as a width approaching zero.

All lines are composed of cycles where all points in the line exist as a center between radiuses....we are left with quantum circularity. I address this elsewhere...somewhere, I can't remember.




You can choose to interpret A(t0) = 5 and A(t100) = 5 as "repetition". Or you can choose to interpret it as two distinct points with the same value.


Two distinct points of the same value is "repetition".


The 2nd distinction that you fail to draw is that a repetition of one variable is not the same as a repetition of the state of the entire system. That's just tunnel vision.

Computating everything is also tunnel vision...as well as keeping one's focus on the "mark", worst case scenario I end up going mad and put in a pscyhiatric institution on heavy doses of drugs...which means I get to stay "high" all the time. Win/Win scenario for me.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm Two distinct points of the same value is "repetition".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm Computating everything is also tunnel vision...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm as well as keeping one's focus on the "mark", worst case scenario I end up going mad and put in a pscyhiatric institution on heavy doses of drugs...which means I get to stay "high" all the time. Win/Win scenario for me.[/color]

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm Two distinct points of the same value is "repetition".

And repetition through time is not circularity. It's repetition at different space-time coordinates.

In a way this is good. It means the phenomenon has a discernable structure through time. It's periodic.
If it didn't repeat through time (e.g it had no structure) we'd be fucked trying to describe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity


Point A projecting to Point B is Point B as A projecting to itself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm Computating everything is also tunnel vision...

Tell that to Quantum Physicists
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shut_up_and_calculate

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:16 pm as well as keeping one's focus on the "mark", worst case scenario I end up going mad and put in a pscyhiatric institution on heavy doses of drugs...which means I get to stay "high" all the time. Win/Win scenario for me.[/color]

At some point you have to surrender to complexity. There are far too many zeroes in it all.

Way more than there are quantum particles in your brain....

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:37 pm Point A projecting to Point B is Point B as A projecting to itself.

Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:37 pm Point A projecting to Point B is Point B as A projecting to itself.

Express it in temporal logic

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:38 pm Show me what temporal logic is without relying on absolutes.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:38 pm Show me what temporal logic is without relying on absolutes.

Any computer language

And if you don't like the grammar/semantics of any of the languages we have - invent your own!

As long as it's Turing-complete it will be consistently meaningful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm "A closely related concept is that of Turing equivalence – two computers P and Q are called equivalent if P can simulate Q and Q can simulate P."

This is just a replication of a mirroring process in nature (repetition of phenomenon through reproduction, cyclical of seasons, branching, etc.) and human consciousness (mirror neurons, mirroring movements in learning process, etc.)

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:48 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm "A closely related concept is that of Turing equivalence – two computers P and Q are called equivalent if P can simulate Q and Q can simulate P."

This is just a replication of a mirroring process in nature (repetition of phenomenon through reproduction, cyclical of seasons, branching, etc.) and human consciousness (mirror neurons, mirroring movements in learning process, etc.)

Yes, but in theory Turing completeness is a stricter condition.

Any Turing complete machine can simulate another Turing-complete machine...... can simulate another Turing complete machine....

Recursively and ad infinitum.

There's a finer distinction between simulation vs emulation.

A classical computer can emulate a quantum computer.
A quantum computer can simulate a classical computer.

It's black boxes all the way down.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:56 pm "Stricter" is just another word for "probabilistic".