Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Since no one responded, I must reiterate the importance of this...

Expand Messages
  • zwizard666
    Greetings: Thoughts of responses and goals of mathematics/perception: I was very pleased that paulmillscv realized exactly what I was trying to say. The
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

      Thoughts of responses and goals of mathematics/perception:

      I was very pleased that paulmillscv realized exactly what I
      was "trying" to say. The general concept, that I mentioned before,
      is basically rooted in the primes with respect to their neighbors.
      When I heard about other methods known as "sieve" methods in order to
      find primes, I was relatively surprised though I was not pleased. I
      do not believe that a formula for the primes, or an understanding of
      them has yet been found. If such an understanding of the nature of
      the primes was known, it would be prevalent in every possible area of
      mathematical literature that one could find, and it is not. Primes
      are still largely a mystery, and I believe that, to give them
      justice, they should stay that way.
      Let us the consider the true goal of mathematics or any scientific
      pursuit. Yes, there is the goal of the world; the USING of
      mathematical and scientific knowledge/information in order to satisfy
      monetary greed or to wage warfare. There are countless other
      materialistic and horrible ends that meet the, at first, innocent
      understanding of a meaning more important than mere symbols on a
      paper. The evils of this world corrupt all true insights.
      Basically, what was once believed (by the creators whose innovative
      ingenuity invented the foundation) as sophisticated thought actually
      was USED to satisfy the most primitive core of the human minds who
      abused such knowledge in their own private manipulative power games.
      What is the true goal? The true goal is the process; it is not the
      results. It is the gradual contemplative understanding of
      mathematics as embodying a pure aspect of our existence. I realize
      that mathematics is distinctly human; the capacity for it is inborn.
      It is also a characteristic of many other higher lifeforms (more
      similar to us--"higher" is a relative word) as I have been reading
      about in the book entitled, "Where Mathematics Comes From." The
      greater we understand the fact that linguistics and mathematics (in
      its basic form) can be easily equated with each other and that
      mathematics is simply a system of conceptual metaphors applied
      through associative methods will we be able to collectively realize
      that mathematics is akin to human perception and understanding of the
      reality to which we are presented. Our mind is our reality; nothing
      can be known outside of it. What I find shocking and true is the
      sheer amount of symmetry that occurs everywhere. Much of this is
      assumptive, yet the similarities are there: the consequence of the
      human mind's structural bilateralization interpreting ALL ASPECTS OF
      REALITY AS BEING BALANCED OR EQUALIZED. This must be intuitively
      true. For another similar idea can validate it. We are limited by
      our capacity. This is vital. It proves that there is only a
      discrete amount that we can ever discern. If you are still a
      skeptic, consider the analogy. A handheld calculator of nine digital
      onscreen spaces available is limited to producing numbers of nine
      digits (whatever number they may represent) or less. Therefore, the
      calculator, by its design, is limited to a given amount of
      information for a given amount of space-no more no less. Any system
      that functions by some given rule (like the calculator) is limited by
      its rules, and it cannot break the rules or extend itself beyond
      them. The rules are an inherent property the the thing itself.
      Taking away the these rules on the calculator would be like taking
      away its ability to express numbers on a display screen (though the
      digit space can be altered locally and the calculator can retain its
      original purpose). What is most important is that the rules are
      properties of the system, and by that they limit the system, thus
      distinguishing it as a system differentiable from another. Here is
      the second half of the analogy. Human beings (or human minds)
      operate by specific rules just like the calculator. These rules are
      really synonymous with inherent or inborn properties of the system
      itself. The system cannot extend beyond its properties or its rules
      that govern it. This applies to the question of whether it is
      humanly possible to understand a reality outside of the human
      condition. The answer is no. By our confined existence, we are
      limited like the calculator into only providing what the rules permit
      us to provide. We do not have direct access to our structure (unless
      possibly the genetic code could be altered), but even then, no matter
      what one does, a perception of reality will always be limited by the
      structure of the perceiver's intuitive mechanisms. There is no way
      around it. Reality is an inner reality, native to and curtailed to
      the specific interpreting structures that receive information.
      Whether or not any information actually travels to the "mind" or is
      already within a "larger mind," is unknown and will always be

      Observation regarding the future:

      You may chuckly at this based upon a possible inference of yours
      that I believe I am a psychic. Of course I do not. The numbers are
      psychic, though generally. The numbers are generic, yet their
      implications can give one an idea of reality and where events are
      leading. A subjective observation (that I have noticed myself and
      have had reconfirmed several times) is that as one ages, the rate of
      time increases proportionally. This would seem to agree with what
      the numbers say themselves. This next part involves mental pictures
      of a graph displaying that we will expect a "convergence" in the
      future. I would be interested in finding a program that could do
      such graphs.
      This involves ratios (and it is proper since the existence of every
      number is not by itself, but rather, as a ratio to another number).
      Even the natural numbers are ratios: 1/1, 2/1, 3/1..
      Here is the graph. The x-axis will represent discrete units of
      time (t). Time will represent shifts in position from 0 (equaling no
      time) to 1 (equaling the first two ratios in question), to 2
      (equaling the next two ratios in question), and so on. The y-axis
      will represent the decimal equivalent of the two ratios being
      compared simultaneously in one unit of time. What two ratios are we
      comparing? We are comparing a ratio greater than 1 and its inverse
      which will be less than one. Here is how we begin:
      () parentheses = repeating decimal

      Time unit 0
      no ratios

      Time unit 1
      1/1 =1.0
      1.1 =1.0

      Time unit 2
      2/1 =2.0
      1/2 =0.5

      Time unit 3
      3/2 =1.5
      2/3 =0.(6)

      That is all one really needs to observe what is happening here. We
      have a convergence of upper and lower regions towards unity as time
      increases at a constant. Hmm. Notice anything? Didn't we begin at
      unity? What are we infinitely approaching? Unity. Even though we
      know where are going, the numbers will get closer, closer, and closer
      to an almost perfect convergence on its starting point 1/1 yet never
      get there. A dual asymptote. The antiderivative of this will be 1/1
      which does equal the 1/1 derivative. Yet all of this jibberish only
      does one thing: approximates. Approximations are not good enough.
      We have a problem. Why is the beginning 1/1 complete, whole, perfect
      and why is the eventual destination of convergence, fractional?
      Here, I believe, is the most profound reason (if you are still
      listening). Remember that understanding and personal exploration and
      creativity are all that really matter.
      Imagine what we consider as the number 1 or the equivalent ratio
      1/1. We consider it static. Yet these numbers are not static! They
      are moving with time; time makes them move or change in accordance.
      Imagine if we broke up the "static, complete" number 1/1 into many,
      many parts and we started adding them up. We would approach the sum
      of 1/1, yet what if the number 1/1 was divided infinitely? This
      means that we would never ever reach a "complete" 1/1. We would have
      a fractional approximation that approached 1/1 with time. Begins to
      sound like the graph does it not? What we have is the sequential sum
      of additive parts converging to the same place (1/1) like the
      sequence of ratios is converging to 1/1. A vital and profound aspect
      of this involves the challenge against our notions of "wholeness and
      completeness" not only in the numbers but in ourselves and our
      reality as TIME is introduced. Time stretches everything infinitely
      thin. But as time progresses (at a constant rate), the space between
      becomes smaller causing time to be compressed into a smaller and
      smaller area (or region of space). Don't believe me? See for
      yourself. With the ratios, the increments of change between
      subsequent units of time becomes smaller and smaller. As it gets
      closer to 1/1 there is barely any space left, yet time is always
      constant. The same with our additive sequence. As we add our sums
      together, we approach 1/1. Yet the space remaining truncates. So as
      we get closer and closer to 1/1 we are left with an increasingly
      smaller amount of space, yet time is always constant. These lines of
      logic have told me some extremely fascinating things. Have they told
      you anything? I hope so. Where are we all going? Toward unity.
      Where did we come from? Unity. We are heading in a loop. We go
      from whence we came. It is oscillatory according to time. My
      statements also prove that when 1/1 is divided infinitely with
      respect to time, the end result will always be an approximate to
      1/1. This is because time is the ultimate converger. When we look
      at things realistically, we see that all numbers (when time is
      involved) are not static nor complete. It is arguable that the
      numbers themselves are more like a schematic representation of the
      universe, but this is false. The sole existence of another number
      ANY DISTANCE FROM 0(or your initial starting point whatever it may
      be) is determined by a function of time upon that starting point.
      The result determines the next set of data for the sequence, or your
      ARE NOT EXCLUDED. Can you count numbers in zero time? Or can you
      even think of any two simultaneously? No! So how does 1 comes from
      0? It is brought into existence by time. The first unit of time
      gives you 1! Could it be that time really is synonymous with space?
      Well, it has been proven so, not only here but elsewhere! This means
      that the first unit of time actually generates existence! It
      generates space! The ultimate question is what time is exactly. I
      now know properties of its behavior. I know its general path, yet I
      do not know where it comes from or what gives rise to it. I am open
      to your insights in this area, to the pursuit of truth.

    • Hans.Rosenthal@t-online.de
      ... You took the words right out of my mouth, Marcel. Thanks. Hans
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Marcel Martin wrote:
        > >Since no one responded, I must reiterate the importance of this...
        > And why should people be obliged to answer such a stuff of mystical
        > nonsense?
        > Marcel Martin

        You took the words right out of my mouth, Marcel. Thanks.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.