🚀 go-pugleaf

>>   1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality.  We map the concept 
>> of 1
>> on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations 
>> of what physical reality is.


"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote
> An axiom. So?

  So abstract though apparently evades you.


>>   We observe that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
>>   We observe that 1 (generalized object) + 1 (generalized object) = 2 
>> objects
>>
>>   We then abstract away the concept of 1, the cocncept of 2 and the 
>> concept of  addition.


"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote
> Boring...

 Ignorance.


>>   However, we have only emperical evidence that our abstraction is 
>> correct.

"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote
> Because you say so?

  No, because observation is the only form of verification.

  IDIOT.



>> It may be that once in every 10**200 tries 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples. 
>> We don't know since we haven't done the experiment enough times, and even 
>> if we did, we would conclude that the experiment was in error.


"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote
> Boring...

  Right over your head....  Again...



>>   So we must recognzie that the abstraction could be wrong.


"DB" <abc@some.net> wrote
> I have a mouse in my pocket too!!!!!!

   You should stop playing with it or you will go blind.



>>   Now if the basis of all mathematics might not properly map onto the 
>> real world, then what does that tell us about the applcability of 
>> mathematics to predicting the ultra small scale or ultra large scale 
>> behaviours of the universe?

DB wrote:
> Nothing, if you don't have substantiating observations...

  Do you have any physical observations that show that 3**13415 -1 < 
3**13414 * 3 ???







>> Perhaps it is that one chance in 10**200 that has generated the universe 
>> as we know it.  Perhaps 1 vacuum - 1 vacuum = 1 vacuum + 1/10**300 
>> something else?

DB wrote:
> You are a loon?

  I have an empty box.  I look in the box, and it is not empty.
I look again, it is empty.  I look again and it is not empty.

 Welcome to the real world of the very small.



>>   Perhaps when subdividing time intervals 1 + 1 = 1.5 or 3 or 2 or -1 
>> depending on when the subdivisions are added.

DB wrote:
> Do you write SiFi? I hope not...

Phys. Rev. 71, 38 - 41 (1947)
Quantized Space-Time


>
>>   Does 1 have any meaning in a universe devoid of material existance?  If 
>> not, then how, and at what point does the applicability of mathematics 
>> fail?

DB wrote:
> What music belongs here?

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=serero&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=serebro&hl=en&sitesearch=&start=30



>>   How much time passes when there are no clocks available to measure it?

DB wrote:
> I'm starting to hear it....

   What clocks existed or will exist at the beginning and proposed ending of 
the Universe?




>>   What is the size of a particle that is alone in the universe?

DB wrote:
> do, di do du...

  How does an electron know how it's electri field strength falls off with 
distance if there is no way to define distane?





>
>>   What we do know (within the limitations of human knowledge) is that 
>> mathematics is a logically consistant mesh of numerical and logical 
>> relationships.  We have painstakingly construced mathematics so that it 
>> is so and have chosen a basis which provides us great utility in 
>> numerically predicting how things work.

DB wrote:
> There it is! Twilight Zone!!!!!!!

  Welcome to the real world.  Shit Sucer.




DB wrote:
> We, faith, your construct. Known as a strawman to most...

  Meaningless.


>>   The clearest recognition of this is in the suggestion that an 
>> uncertainty term - an indeterminate statement of truth - should be added 
>> to boolean logic.

DB wrote
> Zero, one, and your reality. Wow....

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/38/04700917/0470091738.pdf