Dave_Oblad » April 6th, 2017, 3:11 pm wrote:Look at 10/3 as a question (yes I know that involves numbers but bear with me).
You don't have to be very astute to see (in decimal) the answer is 3.333333333333 etc.
If I asked what the 1,000,000th digit to the right of the decimal point.. you would say "3" with complete confidence. Why? Because it can't be anything else, given the method of deduction used.
Positor » April 6th, 2017, 5:31 pm wrote:But if you asked: "What is the square root of 4?", I would reply "+2 or 2". It could be either; there is no uniquely correct answer. The two answers are not equivalent, since +2 is not equal to 2. It has to be one or the other. Does this introduce indeterminacy into math and/or logic — at least in the context of a mathematical universe, which would have to "choose" one of the two values?

Positor » April 6th, 2017, 6:31 pm wrote:
But if you asked: "What is the square root of 4?", I would reply "+2 or 2". It could be either; there is no uniquely correct answer. The two answers are not equivalent, since +2 is not equal to 2. It has to be one or the other. Does this introduce indeterminacy into math and/or logic — at least in the context of a mathematical universe, which would have to "choose" one of the two values?
But if I use the word Compute, they automatically assume I mean Numerical Mathematics using Numerical Operators when in fact I'm using Logical Operators and Boolean Algebra.
Stuff can get pretty weird. Or.. at least weird when one's mind is locked into Macro Descriptions and Solids. But when perceived in the form of Waves and Fields, the weirdness becomes comprehensible. Except for those that can't release the concept of solidness.
Raj wrote:I have never discussed “compute” with you, whereas several times you have asked me to look closely at the millionth numerical figure (in our decimal system) of 10/3 or the 6th of Pi etc., as though they held some deep philosophical secrets, which lead me to hypothesise that you hold some deep subconscious fascination with numbers, while at the same time publicly disavowing it. A kind of numerical Stockholm Syndrome disorder.
Raj wrote:Logical Operators and Boolean Algebra, ultimately operate upon numbers.
Raj wrote:That “solid matter”, stars, galaxies, microbes, grass, trees, animals and humans have evolved and are composed of atoms, which in turn are composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, which in turn are composed of “massless particles”, does not make them unreal.
Raj wrote:The universe is dynamic. It is moving, evolving.
The point you seem to be missing is Determinism.
Wrong. They can.. but generally, such depicts True & False or Yes & No status.
Yes, I am fixated on CA's
they have the power to define a working Universe. A Deterministic Universe.
A Universe that starts with a first Iteration.. which would be the Beginning of "Time".
Do you have a better description for how "Time" began?
So is a CA.. obviously. Why can't you see or understand that?
mitchellmckain » March 30th, 2017, 11:22 am wrote:Look up Bell's inequality.
When I say the Universe is made from Math, everyone jumps into Math Mode. I don't deal that much with Add, Subtract, Multiply and Divide. I deal more with And, Or, Nor and Exclusive Or. Still a form of Math in the Field of Logic.
Funny, "read some philosophy" has come up.. yet I can find no reference regarding Cellular Automatons going back very far in History. A couple of decades perhaps. This Idea of the Universe being a Cellular Automaton is pretty New.. in fact.. it may be an original Idea.. as Max Tegmark has not embraced the concept yet, even though he beat me to the concept that the Universe may be composed of Math.
Bell's Inequality issues are related to naysayers who do not believe that entanglement happens in the way that the equations of Quantum Mechanics suggest it does (naively).
Bell's inequalities proves that the selection of an eigenstate upon measurement must be a totally random coin flip.
hyksos » April 9th, 2017, 9:40 pm wrote:mitchellmckain » March 30th, 2017, 11:22 am wrote:Look up Bell's inequality.
His entire answer was "Look up Bell's inequality." Literally. Like this is not quotesnipped or anything.
Well mitchellmckain, I have looked it up. But also, I heard a lot about it years before this thread even started on this forum. Bell's Inequality issues are related to naysayers who do not believe that entanglement happens in the way that the equations of Quantum Mechanics suggest it does (naively).
(For those of you entering into this conversation between me and m.mckain)
Raj wrote:Dave alas you have displayed ignorance of the most basic maths, which I suspect is the source of your propensity to give examples from elementary school arithmetic, and worship algebra, for which you have shown to have, at best, a tenuous grasp of. The millionth numerical figure of 10/3 is determined because it is set by predetermined rules. From that you cannot deduce the Universe is deterministic. If it were so, the Nobel committee would be hammering at your door, to bestow you their prize for your brilliant discovery. Have you heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? Nondeterministic algorithms?
Raj wrote:It is amazing that being a computer programmer, and one that argues against the reality of solid stuff based on its ultimate composition, you seem to be unaware that ultimately computers respond to a series of 0’s and 1’s.
Raj wrote:As it happens I do have a better explanation. The universe always existed. It changes but is never created nor destroyed.
Dave: 1's and 0's is simply a convention for binary expression. It is equally valid to state they operate on (True and False) or (On and Off) inputs.
Dave: ”Nondeterministic algorithms rely on external inputs, such as a Random Number Generator. If you exclude external inputs to such an algorithm then you will only have Deterministic Algorithms”.
Dave: “The Universe constantly loses energy in a nonrecoverable form.”
Raj wrote:And you go on repeating the values of 10/3, drawing squiggly lines and referring me to cartoons. Wouldn’t anyone find that exasperating?
I had never heard of a Nondeterministic Algorithm
Sure enough, it only exists if ..
Another sidebar: <IF> the Universe is a Quantum Computer and is SelfAware.. then a fringe topic might include the possibility that the Universe is sensitive to our desires and may adjust itself accordingly.
Isn't that a fun concept?
I am hoping to project deeper insights aimed at intelligent minds, yours included.
mitchellmckain » April 11th, 2017, 12:37 am wrote:Oh and by the way... I am NOT a graduate student. I am completely graduated with a B.S. in mathematics and a Masters degree in theoretical physics. But yeah the research impaired are free to doubt whatever they want because the prejudices in their head are more important than information publicly available to everyone.
Just a silly question  is that what computers use or programmers?If one intends to do standard Math, then today, most modern computers use Base 16.
rajnz00 » April 11th, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:I ask because all I see are 0's and 1's and computers still run on OnOff switches?

hyksos » April 11th, 2017, 12:33 pm wrote:mitchellmckain , are you adopting the position that Bell's Inequality experiments firmly prove that the universe is incomputably random?
Second question: Are you further claiming that anyone could look up this "plain fact", if they are not "research imparied"??
It seems to me that the choice creates more than an impression, rather it makes it definite for the computer to act uponThe impression of definiteness is due to our choice in when to take the measurement.
Wiki wrote:a nondeterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, even for the same input, can exhibit different behaviors on different runs" Or in my simple language gives novel, unpredictable, nondeterministic outputs.
Yes there are very few such as David Bohm who are willing to discard local realism in order to stubbornly cling to physical determinism, but the vast majority choose interpretations such as Copenhagen, Everett and Bayesian which accept the verdict of scientific experiments that physical determinism must be discarded.
Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests