TakenItSeriously

Senior Members
  • Content count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About TakenItSeriously

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 03/12/64

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Silicon Valley
  • Interests
    Problem Solving, Poker, Physics, Engineering, Digital Security
  • College Major/Degree
    autodidact
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Learned SR, GR, & QM at age 7. Resolved myself to altruism over religion the age of 17. Solved EMI issues for Gigabit Ethernet which had blocked its rollout for two years.
  • Occupation
    Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

6198 profile views
  1. When is justice ever justified?

    Ok, I’ll bite, what’s your definition for justice?
  2. Enhanced senses when one is weaker

    I’m not a scientist but I do believe in science, but just not absolutely which I think is a mistake from any point of view. It’s probably due to their being trained to believe only in the evidence that they can record which sounds good in theory but can cause them to sometimes overlook the obvious, but that’s just a guess on my part. I tend to hear absurd expectations from many in these forums like I’m supposed to run out and buy some satelite time which I thought was a scientist being facetious until I realized most aren’t scientists but kind of avid followers of science like myself, though I never liked the term follower. That’s because I have a thing about objective logic which is just the way my mind works. So I have to logically attack a problrm based on the evidence thats available and rethink my possible solutions until I can finally see a reasonable solution that doesnt just fit the evidence, but makse a lot of sense given the evidence. So as to be clear, this is just my opinion based on my own experimental experiences of closing my eyes and walking around and my use of objective logic to find a reaason that fits with the evidence and my experience. But in my opinion, I would agree with the OP and say that our senses don’t suddenly become more acute as if we are experiencing evolution in realtime. But it’s far more likely that we are adjusting the acuteness of our focus on the remaining senses.in order to hear far more then we could with say when wearing earbuds playing music. I would even speculate that our brain becomes better at interpreting what our senses are telling us in order to adapt to our situation. But thats just a laypersons point of view.
  3. Original Solution to the “Liars Paradox”

    There is some profound misunderstanding about the significance of the roll that validity or more importantly invalidity plays in logic. Aside from the laws of logic or the roles that axioms play, You can think of validity/invalidity as the only rule in logic. The consequence of it being the only rule and the fact that logic basically represents all thinking outside of math, then its fair to say that the scope of invalidity covers every type of error mankind has ever made since the dawn of consciousness. so it needs to be taken a little more seriously than just the proper usage of English. If you think rigor is important in math, then think of invalidity at least with the same importance as the rigor you apply to math. because the lack of respect for invalidity is literally just plain ignorance. and every thing that comes from ignorance. I’ll try to write something up on logic later but for now there is an easy trick that we can use when dealing with paradoxical problems. The source of every paradoxical problem is an intuitive error. Thats what makes them seem so paradoxical. Its the conflict between logic and intuitiive error. So you can start by mulling over how that applies to these problems
  4. Original Solution to the “Liars Paradox”

    .I still cant see anywhere stating if those problems have discovered solutions or not. Other than the millet problem which Aristotle had successfully refuted back in the same era it was proposed. Which suggests that they should have all been solved.by now. Does anyone know for certain the state of those problems? I used to think that there wer no more unsolved paradoxes until I discovered the balance paradox still had no solution so I dont make that assumption anymore, and I’m not going to keep posting known solutions. That would be like posting solutions that prove the earth is round.or something.
  5. Original Solution to the “Liars Paradox”

    It still makes no sense to me, sorry. It looks like a self conflicting statement I guess Id describe it like a statement that 2+2=5 which I understand, isn’t the best analogy, maybe divide by zero is closer. Better still, it’s an infinite recursive loop maybe?
  6. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    I see, that makes more sense. Thanks.
  7. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    How do you mean? As in someone redirecting my google results?
  8. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    I guess we cross posted. see three posts up. I’ll try and find the link Something is wrong with my browser I got to that page and everything froze
  9. Original Solution to the “Liars Paradox”

    ok, I guess you see meaning where I don’t. if someone told me “I am lying” Id ask him ”about what?” but if someone said “I’m happy”, Id say “good for you” To me one makes sense the other doesn’t.but thats not the point Either could have validity as a statement of logic or not depending on the context, but not making sense is a valid point of invalidity. Otherwise it’s like trying to make sense out of nothing.
  10. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    No listing, he just showed the riddle, and I found a solution. I thought it had already had been solved back then. In fact today was the first time I saw that it didnt have a solution. Oh I see what you meant, I googled unsolved logic problems and found it listed under Zihnos paradoxes. is said there were a series with 9 that still survived which I thought meant 9 had remained unsolved. then I saw that the millet problem had a solution given
  11. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    Why? did I say something that was offensive. I certainly didn't mean to but if I did offend, I’m sorry.
  12. Origional Solution for the Millet paradox

    I just fiund out this one had a solution already. Bummer, I thought they were all supposed to be unsolved.
  13. Origional solution to Achilies and tortoise paradox

    or you could say, I annihilated it
  14. Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:
  15. I solved this paradox in high school when the math teacher presented it in limit theory. Since its still listed in the unsolved problems, I guess it didnt take back then. Let me see if I can make it more transpareent. Paradox Achilles and the tortoise paradox In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 meters, for example. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has some distance to go before he can even reach the tortoise.[9] Solution: The falacy of the paradox is that the distances applied for Achilles to cover is provided in like some kind of rapid decay series governed by the pace of the tortoise, that looks like a 1/10th decay. d = 100m + 10m + 1m... The serries wil continue on forever, so I assume the paradoxical effect is that Achilies can never seem to be able to pass the tortoise? However they didnt provide the constant rate of speed or a series for time, so technically its an invalid data set, but to solve the series lets assume Achilies constent velocity is 10m/s. The logical falacy is that we are worried about an infinite series of distance but are forgetting that it’s a race of speed and both have a constant speed. That means an infinite series of time also must coexist with the series for distance: d = 100m + 10m + 1m... = 111.111111m t = 10s + 1s + 0.1s... = 11.1111111s Va =10m/s, Vt = 1m/s So the infinite series just disappears when including both terms and we end up with two linear slopes that cross where Achilies passes the tortoise. Edit to add: To clarify, the two serries each resolves down to infinitely repeating 1’s. where distance has one extra decimal place. to get the velocity we take v =d/t = 10 m/s Therefore the two infinite serries simply cancel out.