In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 am

What physics has demonstrated is that "progression" can be 'paused'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:25 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:16 am
These laws must progress to further laws, through which these laws exist through. This is law.
Not necessarily. You can abandon a 'law' (having found it contradictory) while searching for a new one.

The progression past another law to a new one is a law in these axioms.

Until (and if you ever) find a viable replacement it does not progress to further laws.

All laws cycle through further laws as a law.

The axiom in your system (from where I am observing) is progression. Arrow of time.

No, these laws strictly cycle back what the individual sees in them.

All progression, as an axiom cycles to a point of origin with these axioms as points of origins cycling with eachother.



Falsification == reversal of time. Which physics hasn't proven as "impossible" yet.

Physics observes the potentiality of retrocausality, which observe the future as an axiom progressing to the past or present as axioms.

Addressed in laws.


Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:26 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 am
What physics has demonstrated is that "progression" can be 'paused'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Yes progression as an axiom can be void and cancel itself out.

Addressed in laws.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:30 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:26 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 am
What physics has demonstrated is that "progression" can be 'paused'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Yes progression as an axiom can be void and cancel itself out.

Addressed in laws.
Well. If you turn your logic into an algorithm and run it in a computer - you can see how it evolves/behaves :)

3 things can happen.

1. It converges to a result (I think that would be unexpected)
2. Infinite loop that remains in equilibrium/produces emergent side-effects (which you can observe/measure)
2.1 "Equilibrium" means it doesn't run out of physical resources. Power. Memory etc.
3. It refuses to run :)

Write the code and see what happens!

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:33 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:26 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 am
What physics has demonstrated is that "progression" can be 'paused'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Yes progression as an axiom can be void and cancel itself out.

Addressed in laws.
Well. If you turn your logic into an algorithm and run it in a computer - you can see how it evolves/behaves :)

3 things can happen.

1. It converges to a result (I think that would be unexpected)
2. Infinite loop that remains in equilibrium/produces emergent side-effects (which you can observe/measure)
3. It refuses to run :)
It is inherent within the laws that they cannot be limited to algorithms, as an algorithm as an axiom is void on its own terms and must progress to further axioms that are not limited to algorithms.

The same applies to computer computation as proof being an axiom.

This is addressed in the laws.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:30 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:26 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:23 am
What physics has demonstrated is that "progression" can be 'paused'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Yes progression as an axiom can be void and cancel itself out.

Addressed in laws.
Well. If you turn your logic into an algorithm and run it in a computer - you can see how it evolves/behaves :)

3 things can happen.

1. It converges to a result (I think that would be unexpected)
2. Infinite loop that remains in equilibrium/produces emergent side-effects (which you can observe/measure)
2.1 "Equilibrium" means it doesn't run out of physical resources. Power. Memory etc.
3. It refuses to run :)

Write the code and see what happens!
These laws are their own proofs as axioms.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:37 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:33 am
It is inherent within the laws that they cannot be limited to algorithms, as an algorithm as an axiom is void on its own terms and must progress to further axioms that are not limited to algorithms.
This is where your 'laws' clash with physics. Algorithms are limited by two things only: space and time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:33 am
The same applies to computer computation as proof being an axiom.

This is addressed in the laws.
Like I said. Computation is not a "proof" of anything. Computation is just what the universe does.

Humans are just copycats.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:44 am

Also. I need to draw a distinction between computational complexity and computability.

Computational complexity deals with practical limits given finite resources.
Computability theory deals with theoretical limits only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, recursion theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am
These laws are their own proofs as axioms.
So they are tautologies? ;)

Relationships between definability, proof and computability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computabi ... putability

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:47 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:37 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:33 am
It is inherent within the laws that they cannot be limited to algorithms, as an algorithm as an axiom is void on its own terms and must progress to further axioms that are not limited to algorithms.
This is where your 'laws' clash with physics. Algorithms are limited by two things only: space and time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Actually they don't clash with physics as they are not limited to them as physics is a set of laws in continual progression. This progression of axioms leads not just to further complex axioms but these complex axioms are axioms are axioms in themselves.

This progression from axiom to complex axiom as an axiom observes a self maintained circularity.

The upper limit of entropy in Bernstein bound as the energy must be finite if the region bound in space is finite observes a circularity.


This is contained within the laws.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:33 am
The same applies to computer computation as proof being an axiom.

This is addressed in the laws.
Like I said. Computation is not a "proof" of anything. Computation is just what the universe does.

Humans are just copycats.

If the computation is not proof of anything then applying these laws to an algorithm is void.

This is contained in the laws.


Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:44 am
Also. I need to draw a distinction between computational complexity and computability.

Computational complexity deals with practical limits given finite resources.
Computability theory deals with theoretical limits only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, recursion theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.
Recursion theory, or any extension of it, must progressive past itself into a circularity and point of origin axiom.

It is contained in these laws.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:51 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:34 am
These laws are their own proofs as axioms.
So they are tautologies? ;)

Relationships between definability, proof and computability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computabi ... putability
As a a tautology these laws must progress past a tautology into a circular axiom or axiom as point of origin not limited to the defintion of tautology.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am
Recursion theory, or any extension of it, must progressive past itself into a circularity and point of origin axiom.

It is contained in these laws.
Well, at some point you are going to have to tackle this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

Computation is complete.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:54 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 8:49 am
Recursion theory, or any extension of it, must progressive past itself into a circularity and point of origin axiom.

It is contained in these laws.
Well, at some point you are going to have to tackle this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

Computation is complete.
It is complete due to law 3, however computation is not limited to completeness as computation as an axiom must progress to further axioms in order to be defined. Computation is an extension of these laws but these laws are not limited to computation.

Addressed already.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6048
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:08 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 5:11 am
Beating around the many bushes as usual.
Your problem here is you did not define 'what is philosophy' i.e. philosophy-proper before you start bashing your own twisted understanding of 'what is philosophy'.

My view of the essence of philosophy-proper is this from Russell;
Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
While there are forms, the above is grounded on the generic features of the human DNA.
Oh yeah, russels philosopjy is dependent upon a progressive linearism...

This is contained in these laws.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 37 guests