Science > Physics > antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Archimedes Plutonium" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2004 02:09:44 AM |
| Object: |
antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate |
I do not know where I am going in this thread if at all further. Perhaps I
should stop now. But I think not. I think the idea of a quantization
minimum maybe a key concept that can shed light on how much knowledge is
contained in a subject. For instance, the subject of chemistry has at
minimum 94 slots represented by all the chemical elements from hydrogen to
that of plutonium and so chemistry is all the combinations of 94 slots.
Whereas if mathematics Numbers has a minimum quantization of 15 slots begot
from 3 X 5 matrix to form all the numerals from the figure of 8 (digital
needs only 8 figure to form any other numeral). And if the Minimal
Quantization in language, let us pick the English language and its 23-30
letters of the alphabet and other markings and so we can begin to establish
the idea that Language is so vastly more containing of Knowledge than is
Algebraic Math because language needs at minimum 30 slots whereas Math
Numbers needs 15 slots. And where chemistry knowledge needs at minimum 94
slots whereas language needs only 30 slots so that we can have a guage of
how much knowledge is embodied in chemistry and language and numbers.
And because chemistry has such an enormously larger knowledge-universe that
language can never really encapsulate chemistry but since language has 30
slots and numbers has 15 slots that language can fully encapsulate Number
theory. And that there will never be a piece of knowledge about Numbers
that the English language can never formulate.
Yes, I think I am wise to pursue this topic because the last paragraph
above is an Anti-Godel-proof scheme. Godel in his undecidable proofs of
mathematics essentially said that there will be statements in mathematics
that are undecideable.
But the flaw of the Godel proofs of undecideability is that Godel used
NaturalNumbers as being the FiniteIntegers. If Godel had used
NaturalNumbers were the All-Adics then he could never have proven his
Undecideable theorems.
So, this method of Minimal Quantization is a start into telling us whether
one body of knowledge has a broader scope than another. Whether Language is
larger than numbers or vice versa.
And finally, what would be the Minimal Quantization of the subject of
physics?
It would be the largest knowledge set because everything reduces to physics
even language, even poetry, even art, even religion are subsets of physics.
So what is the Minimal Quantization of physics? I do not know. I guess I
would start with electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons and add
energy, time, momentum, position. If chemistry has at minimum 94 slots,
then physics should have more than 94. I think that chemistry, language and
numbers are 2 dimensional but that physics is 3 dimensional. So that in
chemistry it is a 94 X 1 matrix and in language it is a 30 X 1 matrix and
in numbers it is a 3X5 matrix.
But in physics it would be a 3 dimensional matrix. So if I had electrons,
protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, energy, time, momentum, position
which counts to 9 then physics would be a 9X9X9 matrix which would be 729
slots as Minimum Quantization.
So that if chemistry is at minimum quantization of 94 and language at 30
and numbers at 15 and physics at 729.
And if all or part of the above is true then we have little hope of ever
getting to the heart of physics because our language is 30 slots trying to
peer into something of 729 slots.
P.S. I have never understood what Leibniz was doing when he pursued his
monads. I wonder if Leibniz monads were sort of a anti-Godel
undecidability. And if Leibniz monads were counter to Godel Undecidability
whether those monads had anything to do with the idea that language has
only 30 portals into some universal space that has 729 levels.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "Laserman" |
|
| Title: Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers |
10 Aug 2004 09:28:30 AM |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message news:<4114803A.7E534AF6@iw.net>...
But the flaw of the Godel proofs of undecideability is that Godel used
NaturalNumbers as being the FiniteIntegers. If Godel had used
NaturalNumbers were the All-Adics then he could never have proven his
Undecideable theorems.
Speaking about flaws in Kurt Godel logic here is one for you. Godel
was a highly eccentric individual who did not like socializing and
tried to keep to himself as much as possible. Suppose I wanted to
meet with him, for whatever reason, let us say I called him to make an
appointment. Of course he never wanted to meet with anybody and let
us say he did not want to meet with me. He would make the appointment
and never show up! You see to a logician like Godel this would
guarantee avoiding me because he would not be in the same place, at
the same time as me. Usually people make appointments in order to
keep them but not Godel, he made appointments in order NOT to keep
them! But his seemingly impeccable logic has this flaw. What if
there are 2 Godel's in the same universe? They both make the
appointment (because niether one wants to see the other), niether one
shows up, and they accidentally bump into each other at starbucks!
Worlds collide, the universe staggers....Can you imagine what the
conversation would be like? "What are you doing here, I thought you
were supposed to meet me on campus?" "No, you were supposed to meet
ME on campus!"
By the way, once you know how Godel operates then you can control him.
You can whisper in his ear, "Hey Kurt, he knows you are a Godel, so
he's not keeping the appointment either." This will force Kurt to
keep the appointment so that he can guarantee not bumping into me.
Imagine his surprise when he shows up to find me waiting for him with
a huge smile on my face!
Ha,ha, many more games like this are possible using the Godel
scenario.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter T. Daniels" |
|
| Title: Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers |
10 Aug 2004 09:52:59 AM |
|
|
Laserman wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message news:<4114803A.7E534AF6@iw.net>...
But the flaw of the Godel proofs of undecideability is that Godel used
NaturalNumbers as being the FiniteIntegers. If Godel had used
NaturalNumbers were the All-Adics then he could never have proven his
Undecideable theorems.
Speaking about flaws in Kurt Godel logic here is one for you. Godel
was a highly eccentric individual who did not like socializing and
tried to keep to himself as much as possible.
Yet he managed to show up at the University of Chicago in the early
1970s and give a lecture to a packed auditorium (most of whom, of
course, were there to experience the celebrity).
--
Peter T. Daniels
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers |
07 Aug 2004 04:28:18 AM |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I do not know where I am going in this thread if at all further.
No surprises there.
Perhaps I should stop now.
Yes, yes! Do it! This is the best idea you have ever had.
But I think not
Oh, *****...
<remaining lunacy snipped>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rolleston" |
|
| Title: Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... why language will never encapsulate physics Re: quantization of digits, letters and numbers |
10 Aug 2004 10:11:38 AM |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[...]
So that if chemistry is at minimum quantization of 94 and language at 30
Unless we use bits, and then it's 2... :)
and numbers at 15 and physics at 729.
P.S. I have never understood what Leibniz was doing
I doubt you've ever understood anything.
R.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re:antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
07 Aug 2004 12:42:55 PM |
|
|
Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:09:44 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)
But in physics it would be a 3 dimensional matrix. So if I had electrons,
protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, energy, time, momentum, position
which counts to 9 then physics would be a 9X9X9 matrix which would be 729
slots as Minimum Quantization.
That is an interesting insight in that language and chemistry and mathematics
numbers are 2 dimensional knowledge. But that physics as a body of knowledge
has to be 3 dimensional.
So that if chemistry is at minimum quantization of 94 and language at 30
and numbers at 15 and physics at 729.
And if all or part of the above is true then we have little hope of ever
getting to the heart of physics because our language is 30 slots trying to
peer into something of 729 slots.
P.S. I have never understood what Leibniz was doing when he pursued his
monads. I wonder if Leibniz monads were sort of a anti-Godel
undecidability. And if Leibniz monads were counter to Godel Undecidability
whether those monads had anything to do with the idea that language has
only 30 portals into some universal space that has 729 levels.
Yes, it was wise of me to delve and dive into this subject because Godel
theorems of Undecideability of the 20th century were simply fake and false
ideas. They were derived from the flawed concept that Natural Numbers were
Finite Integers. If you assume that Natural Numbers are finite-integers then
you can cook up a falsehood that Godel did with Undecideability. Worse yet,
you can cook up falsehood of Cantor Uncountability and a fallout of Cantor
infinities.
But, when you begin mathematics with the truth, that Natural Numbers like the
Reals have each and every number possess a component of infinity and where the
NaturalNumbers are the InfiniteIntegers, not the FiniteIntegers. Where the
FiniteIntegers are a bag of ill conceived messy crap.
So, when you have NaturalNumbers equal to InfiniteIntegers, then mathematics
tosses out such fake crap as Godel Undecideability and tosses out fake crap
like Cantor infinities.
With NaturalNumbers equal to InfiniteIntegers (the all-Adics) then mathematics
has only one infinity. One infinity where the infinity of the Reals is the
same as the infinity of the All-Adics. Where infinity is one kind, one type.
And that makes alot of logical commonsense because infinity is merely
endlessness and so how can you have species and varieties of endlessness. It
is just that too many mathematicians of the 20th century spent too much time
sitting on their duffs in ivory towers unable to think clearly.
And so, if Cantor was wrong and if Godel was wrong and their flaws of argument
stemmed from their belief that NaturalNumbers equals FiniteIntegers, then the
world of mathematics can give us a Anti-Godel theorem of Decideability. No
longer is it Undecideable but rather instead Decideable.
The start or beginning of a proof of a theorem of Decideable since
NaturalNumbers are Infinite Integers would be to show that subjects like
language and numbers and chemistry and physics have Minimum Quantization and
because language is a larger set than numbers that all statements of number
theory are Decideable.
Again I wonder if Liebniz monad theory was a sort of 17th century precursor of
the question of decideability or undecideability? I wonder if I can replace
the word "monad" with the word "portal" in Leibniz theory? So that if physics
has 9X9X9 levels and if chemistry has 94x1 levels and if language has 30x1
levels and if numbers has 3X5 levels that the English language will penetrate
all of number theory but never penetrate all of chemistry or physics.
And this makes sense in that mathematics without Cantor Uncountable and Godel
Undecideable all of a sudden becomes a rather conquered field of knowledge.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Low" |
|
| Title: Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re:antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
07 Aug 2004 01:46:16 PM |
|
|
In article <4115149F.AAD2B99C@iw.net>, Archimedes Plutonium <NOiwEMAIL> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium
Is this Ludwig Plutonium back in a new and improved edition,
or did Ludwig get a disciple?
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acid Pooh" |
|
| Title: Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
07 Aug 2004 05:15:26 PM |
|
|
(Robert Low) wrote in message news:<cf381o$jt3$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk>...
In article <4115149F.AAD2B99C@iw.net>, Archimedes Plutonium <NOiwEMAIL> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium
Is this Ludwig Plutonium back in a new and improved edition,
or did Ludwig get a disciple?
Same dude. "Changed" his name a few years ago though.
'cid 'ooh
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.D.F. Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
07 Aug 2004 06:28:13 PM |
|
|
(Acid Pooh) writes:
mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) wrote in message
news:<cf381o$jt3$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk>...
In article <4115149F.AAD2B99C@iw.net>, Archimedes Plutonium <NOiwEMAIL> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium
Is this Ludwig Plutonium back in a new and improved edition, or
did Ludwig get a disciple?
Same dude. "Changed" his name a few years ago though.
'cid 'ooh
Ten years ago. He's been AP longer than LP.
--
DO NOT EAT
AGELESS(R)
Oxygen Absorber
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Low" |
|
| Title: Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
08 Aug 2004 02:03:30 AM |
|
|
J.D.F. Stone <jdfs@softhome.net> wrote:
poohonlsd@yahoo.com (Acid Pooh) writes:
mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) wrote in message
Is this Ludwig Plutonium back in a new and improved edition, or
did Ludwig get a disciple?
Same dude. "Changed" his name a few years ago though.
Ten years ago. He's been AP longer than LP.
I forgot it had been so long since I stopped reading the groups
where he posted. Persistent bugger, ain't he.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Bandel" |
|
| Title: Re: NaturalNumbers equals Adics proves Godel was wrong Re: antiGodelUndecid.. Leibniz monads... |
07 Aug 2004 11:59:35 PM |
|
|
(Robert Low) wrote in message news:<cf381o$jt3$1@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk>...
In article <4115149F.AAD2B99C@iw.net>, Archimedes Plutonium <NOiwEMAIL> wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium
Is this Ludwig Plutonium back in a new and improved edition,
or did Ludwig get a disciple?
just the same old *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
