FrankVanPelt's Artist's World of Wampeters, RingWorlds, and Ducks
Quantum Consciousness / Thinking
On this page:
Cones -- absurdist/s
Cones: The Quantum of Consciousness
is its own resolution
Thought is "merely" mind expanded
with a small diagram --and-- an
attendant fractal.
To think to control some
is not to control a duck/tornado/the chaos....
Flaws in Thinking?
=============
BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE
[Martinez, Pp. 15-16]
...
However, the square root of four steps to the left is NOT
negative:
SQRT (-4) == 2*i;
Owing to the meaning-less-ness of such results, physicists often
and routinely disreagard imaginary roots of equations, as well as the
negative rootsthat can be obtained from positive numbers.
other applications of the elementary rules also entail
meaningless asymmetries. For examples, we often use
postive numbers to represent money that is process, and
negative numbers to represent debts. But then,
whereas the square root a of monetary asset can be said
to be an asset too, the square root of a debt is not a debt;
it is imagininary.
END BLOCK QUOTE
Martinez, Alberto A. (2006). Negative Math - how mathematical
rules can be positively bent.
Hmmm, the problem is things like this crop up all of the time and
the fact that the maths doesn't EXACTLY fit the real world (with
things like matrices that don't commute (a*b = b*a is NOT true
for such cases) and so "fixes" are inserted into the workings.
After all, we might well imagine that the universe of maths is
OUTSIDE our universe and "just happens" to fit in some cases.
I think that a lot of this has to do with integers (as the quote
goes Integers are the creation of God, all other numbers are
the creation of the Devil; of Man, take you pick). We use
integers when clearly the universe ISN"T integers. Yes,
things like apples and oranges and even atoms nicely behave
in that manner, but then we know that things break apart;
eg, apple sauce, orange juice, and quarks which won't come
out where we can see them.
Alternatively, it may be that the maths that we have are a
PROPERTY of the universe. I got the chanse to ask Professor
Wolfgang Rindler (who worked with Einstein) a question:
"When the universe formed, the first thnig that
formed was mathematics; wasn't it?"
And he excitedly replied "Yes! Exactly!!"
But of course, before we could continue the conv, someone
butted in with some gushing comments that would have been
more appropriately spent gushing over a star of stage, screen,
TV, or the late night talk circuits. Oig! What a world.
So: Is maths a substance? Hmmmm.
Research and Such
=============
As far as Q/T (Quantum Thinking) and such, i'm mainly concentrating
on going back to how we use science and such to understand the
world -- mainly how we make assumptions that preclude the
quantum, fractal, chaotic, catastrophic-theory, etc nature of the
world since it's really THAT and not some simple linear equation
of it.
Cones -- absurdist/s
Cones: The Quantum of Consciousness
is its own resolution
Thought is "merely" mind expanded
with a small diagram --and-- an
attendant fractal.
To think to control some
is not to control a duck/tornado/the chaos....
Flaws in Thinking?
=============
BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE
[Martinez, Pp. 15-16]
...
However, the square root of four steps to the left is NOT
negative:
SQRT (-4) == 2*i;
Owing to the meaning-less-ness of such results, physicists often
and routinely disreagard imaginary roots of equations, as well as the
negative rootsthat can be obtained from positive numbers.
other applications of the elementary rules also entail
meaningless asymmetries. For examples, we often use
postive numbers to represent money that is process, and
negative numbers to represent debts. But then,
whereas the square root a of monetary asset can be said
to be an asset too, the square root of a debt is not a debt;
it is imagininary.
END BLOCK QUOTE
Martinez, Alberto A. (2006). Negative Math - how mathematical
rules can be positively bent.
Hmmm, the problem is things like this crop up all of the time and
the fact that the maths doesn't EXACTLY fit the real world (with
things like matrices that don't commute (a*b = b*a is NOT true
for such cases) and so "fixes" are inserted into the workings.
After all, we might well imagine that the universe of maths is
OUTSIDE our universe and "just happens" to fit in some cases.
I think that a lot of this has to do with integers (as the quote
goes Integers are the creation of God, all other numbers are
the creation of the Devil; of Man, take you pick). We use
integers when clearly the universe ISN"T integers. Yes,
things like apples and oranges and even atoms nicely behave
in that manner, but then we know that things break apart;
eg, apple sauce, orange juice, and quarks which won't come
out where we can see them.
Alternatively, it may be that the maths that we have are a
PROPERTY of the universe. I got the chanse to ask Professor
Wolfgang Rindler (who worked with Einstein) a question:
"When the universe formed, the first thnig that
formed was mathematics; wasn't it?"
And he excitedly replied "Yes! Exactly!!"
But of course, before we could continue the conv, someone
butted in with some gushing comments that would have been
more appropriately spent gushing over a star of stage, screen,
TV, or the late night talk circuits. Oig! What a world.
So: Is maths a substance? Hmmmm.
Research and Such
=============
As far as Q/T (Quantum Thinking) and such, i'm mainly concentrating
on going back to how we use science and such to understand the
world -- mainly how we make assumptions that preclude the
quantum, fractal, chaotic, catastrophic-theory, etc nature of the
world since it's really THAT and not some simple linear equation
of it.
