wtf wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:29 pmWhat does that mean? Can you give a definition and some examples?

Any abstract or physical phenomena, as any phenomena has both quantitative and qualitative degrees to it.

Word salad.

Salads are the most nutritious part of the meal is served correctly. I'll stupify it for you. All reality, from a physical perspective is composed of light, to some degree. As light composes all reality to a certain degree, it also composes number. Number exists for what it is as number. Light, as a particle wave is probabilistic and subject to flux. So light can be "faster" than itself, under certain circumstantce (even if by .00000000...1%.) however it can only be faster than itself (or other realities for that matter) if measured against a constant, as number. This nature of number, as a universal ethereal space, would provide the foundations for the movement of light while simultaneously being both faster and slower than it. Measurement, as a physical reality considering all processes of the brain are physical in nature, would be an extension of an ethereal dimension where all reality exists as 1 non-moving moment.

But the lamp experiment is only a mathematical thought experiment. It has nothing to do with atoms.

Then why use a lamp and not strict numbers for the experiment. If it is strictly math, either the lamp is composed of numerical realities or the nature of what you deem as "mathematics" is strictly a structural extension of the physical universe.

Nor does your explanation make sense even in the context of atoms. Time zones are observations? What does that mean?

Time is strictly measured movement. Measurement, as objective in nature, is merely a form of self-reflective space that results in the symmetry necessary for structure to exist.

Where do you get all this stuff? Is this something you made up?

Time is a common term for the experience of duration and a fundamental quantity of measuring systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(disambiguation)

The principle of operation of an atomic clock is based on atomic physics; it uses the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels.

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

A quantum mechanical system or particle that is bound—that is, confined spatially—can only take on certain discrete values of energy. This contrasts with classical particles, which can have any energy. These discrete values are called energy levels. The term is commonly used for the energy levels of electrons in atoms, ions, or molecules, which are bound by the electric field of the nucleus, but can also refer to energy levels of nuclei or vibrational or rotational energy levels in molecules.

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

I did not "make" this up.

Where did you get your points? Is that something you made up?

Oh, well now that you've explained it ...

## Thomson's Lamp Solution

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Thomson's lamp can be generalized as an observation of a perpetual change in measurement systems, as rates of "on/off", in themselves cause a perpetual movement resulting in a seperate times zones, as the movements creates their own gravitational zones of "ever -approaching zero". In these respects, measurement as the manifestation of symmetry, produces its own gravitational effect through the manifestation of movements to and from centers. Furthermore, the cosmos manifests this propogative symmetry and can be observed as having some degree of self-awareness.EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:59 amYou got about a 3rd realized Eod, , and this thread WTF is more focused on a engineering issue with a classical cosmological system, that is more Pythagorean in it's physics.

You are going to have to reword that sentence, it can be taken in multiple directions.

He is on the right track so far, but as I pointed out, another unexpected supertask barrier sits behind the supertask solution. It will hit you once you figure out the solution.

There are multiple supertask barriers....maybe it would be better put as "infinite". These in themselves could equate to their own times zones as each would have a gravitational point based upon a "degree" of perpetual movement as ever approaching zero.

I do like how you are looking at it as a single circuit broken up into time zones, I didn't do that quite that way. I merely reversed engineered a hypothetical lamp that could abide by the parameters for Thompson's Lamp, and studied the limitations the network would have for size and complexity of a switch that branches, able to turn a light on and off at the same time. A exceptionally large Lamp can do this, but there is a network limit on the bifurcation of any signal sent that increases both geometrically as well as by arthimatic. Causes a lot of noise, but Thompson Lamp doesn't prohibit it. And the Lamp is presumed to exist, so it can be calculated. A overzealous mathematician later on decided the question had problems, but of course, most mathematics that test real problems at the start of a experiment don't have all the variables expressed or known, they become known over time, so merely posing a incomplete question isn't a prohibition to following it. It doesn't matter if the problem is fully defined or not, as it can still be pursued and solved in regards to the primary question regarding super tasks.

The question of Thomson's lamp, through the observation of "on/off/neural" corresponds directly with the nature of "being/non-being/neither and both being and in these respects breaks down to an understanding of "relativistic" dimensions that exist through movements. It is an important question, if delved into further, as it address the nature of perpetual movement as a form of measurement in itself.

A few systems humans have in them, or have built (our neurology, plumbing) already have the physical conditions that if analyzed, would express the solution more adequately to Thompson's Lamp. It is a question that aims at figuring out super tasking, observation as well as tracking/knowing it is accomplished. That's all you need to know to grasp it. It is a geometric progression as much as a additive build. You are close. Think "bigger", think about efficiency factors. What stops a Lamp switch from being more efficient, what it the limitations physics puts on the most efficient Lamp switch possible, and what are the work arounds. I gave you the hint in the other thread. Plato had something written above the door to his academy.... you know....

In theory the clock could never ring at all in one dimension, while in another dimension the clock would ring while all phases of the lamp being expressed during the "ring" itself (as the ring/time is a cycle, and the lamp movements are mini cycles that fit within it.).

The answer is obscured by "infinite" possibilities being the answer.

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

LOL Yes I am a Pythagorean. Or more accurately a Euclidean. The Pythagoreans were mystics. Euclid laid down the pattern for pure math, a pattern that's stood for over 2000 years. I've had formal abstract math beaten into me by professors at some of the finest schools. I do see many philosophical issues from a mathematical point of view.EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:59 am... and this thread WTF is more focused on a engineering issue with a classical cosmological system, that is more Pythagorean in it's physics.

But I'm not dogmatic. I recognize that abstract math is one way of looking at things, but not necessarily the only way. I'm open to alternatives that make some sense, should such alternatives be presented.

Ok then I'm just wondering where you got these particular ideas and ways of talking about things? Are there sources you can point me to? I'd be glad to learn. Especially the part about the little cycles that are in their own timezone. I can almost see the poetry ... when the lamp starts switching fast enough, we can zoom in and its internal physics would make sense, even if it's globally inconsistent with "outside" physics. Is that what you mean? It's kind of an interesting thought.

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

I had to look through my notes to answer your question:wtf wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:06 amLOL Yes I am a Pythagorean. I've had 20th century abstract math beaten into me by professors at some of the finest schools.EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:59 am... and this thread WTF is more focused on a engineering issue with a classical cosmological system, that is more Pythagorean in it's physics.

But I'm not dogmatic. I recognize that standard abstract math is one way of looking at things, but not necessarily the only thing. I'm open to alternatives that make some sense, should they be presented.

Ok then I'm just wondering where you got these particular ideas and ways of talking about things? Are there sources you can point me to? I'd be glad to learn.

The ideas are all original, however they are extensions of Platonism, Aristolealism, Anaximander, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Neitzche, Heidegger, Husserl, Heraclitus, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Leibniz, Rand, Zeno, Wilson, Popper, M.P. Hall, Blavatsky, Euclid, Hermes Trismesgitus, Tesla, Einstein, Christian Desert Fathers, Greek/Norse/Egyptian/Aztec Mythology, , Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Native American Religions (Hopi, etc.), Christianity (Eastern/Western), Freemasonry, Rosicrucian, Alchemy, Satanism, and Random Authors, Philosophies, Magazines, etc and everyday Prayer/Meditation.

Thats what I can remember/pull out of my notes for now.

The most important three sources of external investigation:

Encyclopedias, Dictionaries and Discussions with People (ranging from your Harvard Polymath to your standard Homeless Person).

Oh yeah.....alot of cigarettes, coffee, chopping wood, and never finding the right woman.

The simple truth is everything starts to appear similar after awhile and basic universal patterns start popping up. The question after awhile is not what you do not believe in, but how far are you willing to go to believe in everything.

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Reality is Poetic if one has the ears....wtf wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:06 amLOL Yes I am a Pythagorean. Or more accurately a Euclidean. The Pythagoreans were mystics. Euclid laid down the pattern for pure math, a pattern that's stood for over 2000 years. I've had formal abstract math beaten into me by professors at some of the finest schools. I do see many philosophical issues from a mathematical point of view.EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:59 am... and this thread WTF is more focused on a engineering issue with a classical cosmological system, that is more Pythagorean in it's physics.

But I'm not dogmatic. I recognize that abstract math is one way of looking at things, but not necessarily the only way. I'm open to alternatives that make some sense, should such alternatives be presented.

Ok then I'm just wondering where you got these particular ideas and ways of talking about things? Are there sources you can point me to? I'd be glad to learn. Especially the part about the little cycles that are in their own timezone.

That one was the application of basic geometry and arithmatic, along with a basic understanding of atoms/particulate matter.

I can almost see the poetry ... when the lamp starts switching fast enough, we can zoom in and its internal physics would make sense, even if it's globally inconsistent with "outside" physics.

Actually it is consistent with outside physics...where do you believe it differs?

Is that what you mean? It's kind of an interesting thought.

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11148**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

It's all above my mathematics and engineering level here but how does the flicker know when the half of whatever time has passed when he gets near the two minutes? What I mean is has the timer got an infinite graduation of marks on it(?) or has he got another timer around somewhere? If so does it matter, as when the first timer which presumably is counting in seconds hits the two minute mark then you'll see if it's on or off no matter how fast the flicker is flicking? And presumably this'll depend upon if you start with an on or an off?

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11148**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

But isn't what we now call Mathematics far removed or not even the same as that which Euclid would recognise as being Maths as we don't have numbers in his sense nor geometry it's all functions or sets or groups or so I've been told?wtf wrote:LOL Yes I am a Pythagorean. Or more accurately a Euclidean. The Pythagoreans were mystics. Euclid laid down the pattern for pure math, a pattern that's stood for over 2000 years. I've had formal abstract math beaten into me by professors at some of the finest schools. I do see many philosophical issues from a mathematical point of view. ...

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Impressive list. Thanks for clarifying.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:31 am

The ideas are all original, however they are extensions of Platonism, Aristolealism, Anaximander, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Neitzche, Heidegger, Husserl, Heraclitus, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, Leibniz, Rand, Zeno, Wilson, Popper, M.P. Hall, Blavatsky, Euclid, Hermes Trismesgitus, Tesla, Einstein, Christian Desert Fathers, Greek/Norse/Egyptian/Aztec Mythology, , Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Native American Religions (Hopi, etc.), Christianity (Eastern/Western), Freemasonry, Rosicrucian, Alchemy, Satanism, and Random Authors, Philosophies, Magazines, etc and everyday Prayer/Meditation.

No I don't think that's true. The state of the lamp at 2 minutes is not defined by the conditions of the problem. It could fly off into space or turn into a fish. Those outcomes would be perfectly consistent with the conditions of the problem, which only tell us the state of the lamp at times before the two minute mark. It makes no difference how you start. I really thought I nailed that down earlier, was there a question left over?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:29 amIf so does it matter, as when the first timer which presumably is counting in seconds hits the two minute mark then you'll see if it's on or off no matter how fast the flicker is flicking? And presumably this'll depend upon if you start with an on or an off?

Of course the math has evolved, but the idea of formal proof in an abstract axiomatic system is the same pattern we use today. Euclid gave us the idea of abstract math based on logical proof. Model some situation of interest by writing down reasonable axioms and deriving logical conclusions. That was a great idea.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:57 pmBut isn't what we now call Mathematics far removed or not even the same as that which Euclid would recognise as being Maths as we don't have numbers in his sense nor geometry it's all functions or sets or groups or so I've been told?

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Knowing, as the manifestation and observation of dimensions, processes itself through unification and individuation through the manifestation of boundaries through "1 as direction" being the premise of these spatial forms.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:29 amIt's all above my mathematics and engineering level here but how does the flicker know when the half of whatever time has passed when he gets near the two minutes? What I mean is has the timer got an infinite graduation of marks on it(?) or has he got another timer around somewhere? If so does it matter, as when the first timer which presumably is counting in seconds hits the two minute mark then you'll see if it's on or off no matter how fast the flicker is flicking? And presumably this'll depend upon if you start with an on or an off?

In these respects, the boundaries as dimensions, are merely number manifesting symmetry result in the structure we observe. These boundaries form the particulate that relate and form the movements through which we observe time and in these respect these "marks" manifests perpetually ad-infinitum through movement.

The timer measures movement through the relation of zero dimensional points acting as divisors that exist if and only if they relate through a line. This line, as relation, is movement and forms the foundations of waves through which we observe the relations of not only particles but the cycles that manifest the particles. In these respects, through the line as potential curvature inherent within the wavelength, one manifests itself as a perpetually moving temporal entity that exists as "direction" with the relation of the zero dimensional point (through the angle of the waves) relating to form these these structures. This is considering what we understand of "time" is merely wavelengths and through cycles of particulate.

In these respects, the direction nature that composed the wavelength (and particulate) as 1 dimensional line and 0 dimensional point is a binary code that manifests through the nature of "number as spatial structure through direction as a form of individuation".

The marks on the clock observing movement cycles, and in these respects are zero dimensional and represent a cycle perpetually moving towards zero ad-infinitum. In these respects, "time is composed of time".

The argument fundamentally observes the relativistic nature of time as it manifests various multidimensional cycles (as times zones) moving towards a zero dimensional point ad-infinitum.

The flickering lamp, through perpetual measurement gradation, observes the relativistic aspects of consciousness as perpetual movement through continual division and in these respects forms its own micro cycles as the movement continually approaches zero at a rate faster than the alarm clock.

In these respects the lamp is in all possible dimensions, as seperate moments, that fit within the temporal cycles that consists itself as "the ring".

In these respects going back to the beginning, knowing is strictly the manifestation of measurement systems through perpetual movement and the nature of measurement and physical reality are merely alternating cycles that form the center gravitational point of time.

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11148**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Seriously, for all I know you're saying something of deep philosophical import but I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. I had this problem with pretty much all of the Germans as it translates badly into English.

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Well...pick a point you don't understand and I will try to give more clarity to it.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:30 amSeriously, for all I know you're saying something of deep philosophical import but I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. I had this problem with pretty much all of the Germans as it translates badly into English.

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11148**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

I'm just puzzled, is this lamp going to reach the two minute mark or not? Personally I think there has to be two counting systems for this experiment to work and as such the two minutes will be hit and then I'd have thought it would depend upon the starting state?wtf wrote:...

No I don't think that's true. The state of the lamp at 2 minutes is not defined by the conditions of the problem. It could fly off into space or turn into a fish. Those outcomes would be perfectly consistent with the conditions of the problem, which only tell us the state of the lamp at times before the two minute mark. It makes no difference how you start. I really thought I nailed that down earlier, was there a question left over? ...

I agree. Would he think it 'abstract math' tho' as I thought he only dealt with geometric proofs?Arising_uk wrote:Of course the math has evolved, but the idea of formal proof in an abstract axiomatic system is the same pattern we use today. Euclid gave us the idea of abstract math based on logical proof. Model some situation of interest by writing down reasonable axioms and deriving logical conclusions. That was a great idea.

I also thought the Greeks would have no truck with the thing we call 'number' nowadays(or the best I can understand of what we call 'number' nowadays that is)?

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

The solution to the lamp problem can only be worked out using calculus.

Using calculus, all you need to do is find the limit of f(x) as x approaches infinity, and f(x) is 1/x.

lim (f(x))x-> infinity is equal to zero. This means that the lamp is neither turned on nor turned off at the end of the two minutes; it also means that the lamp is turned on and off without any time spent on the "off" or on the "on" state.

These are intuitively impossible, but math says this is how it is.

Using calculus, all you need to do is find the limit of f(x) as x approaches infinity, and f(x) is 1/x.

lim (f(x))x-> infinity is equal to zero. This means that the lamp is neither turned on nor turned off at the end of the two minutes; it also means that the lamp is turned on and off without any time spent on the "off" or on the "on" state.

These are intuitively impossible, but math says this is how it is.

- Arising_uk
**Posts:**11148**Joined:**Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Personally I think it logically impossible and shows that the maths we use does not reflect how it is.-1- wrote:

These are intuitively impossible, but math says this is how it is.

### Re: Thomson's Lamp Solution

Look up "intuitively". Then look up "logically". Then look up "impossible". Then look up all the other words in the English language and try to rearrange your entire thinking according to what you learned.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:48 amPersonally I think it logically impossible and shows that the maths we use does not reflect how it is.-1- wrote:

These are intuitively impossible, but math says this is how it is.

What I mean is this: Is it possible to keep halving the intervals between switches? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If it isn't, then the whole mental exercise is moot.

If it is, then the mental exercise leads to a logically sound solution which is nevertheless HUMANLY INTUITIVELY impossible.

The question of the OP directed us to assume that it is physically possible to halve the intervals between switches.

So the logic stands, while the intuition says differently.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests