SFN Blogs

CONTACT!

The year 2020 had been a wild roller coaster of a year, the second nuclear war had just barely been averted, even so 6 nuclear warheads had been detonated over targets, most of them in the middle east with one detonating while it was being loaded into an airplane and one detonating in a remote corner of China after being launched by North Korea, a mistake certainly but China had not been amused.

China had invaded and took over North Korea in just three weeks, now the Chinese were negotiating a unification of the Koreas under the banner of South Korea. Many unlikely things had happened this year, after the dust had more or less settled in the Middle East even those countries had moved sharply toward a state that was at least tolerance if not all out cooperation.

Israel was the country that lost part of a city and an airbase to the accidental detonation of a nuke as it was being loaded on an aircraft, supposed to be impossible but this year was full of impossible events that didn’t seen to know they were impossible. As a couple mega cities built by oil money were being mourned and clean up was being planned something truly improbable if not outright impossible had occurred.

On December 19th as many people were trying to calm back down and live a bare two kilometers from the international space station an alien space craft seemed to simply pop into existence. No one on board the space station had actually seen it appear but an automated camera system had been looking almost directly at the spot the alien had suddenly filled up with a two kilometer long space craft that looked amazing like a famous science fiction space craft, on the video the space craft appeared but what looked like an after image had receded into the distance. Two people on the ground that had been looking at the space station has noticed this as well and in the coming months why this after image had receded into the distance was a popular point of discussion among both scientists and laymen as well.

Sadly this was one of the few things that could be discussed about the alien craft. It hung in low earth orbit for several weeks as humanity nearly went bonkers trying to communicate with the aliens. The space craft, now called Star Ship by nearly everyone could be seen with the naked eye and after seven weeks odd little metallic balls started to appear around the planet, floating through the air these metallic balls showed up nearly everyplace on the planet as days rolled on, one more oddity to be debated fruitlessly.

In the North Pacific an American Navel Task Force was on routine maneuvers when an object appeared on the radar approaching fast, in fact before planes could be scrambled or any measures taken the elongated diamond shaped craft was hovering then landing on the deck of the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. The craft sat on the deck as people scrambled to do something, anything, but no one really had time to do much as the craft off loaded a large metallic box and then rose and speed away into the air over the empty ocean.

Read and comment on the full post

here's an article to read: http://nvate.com/7163/universe-alive/

I think Carl Jung is dismissed too much.

I think there are two pivotal point in human history:

With #1, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?

With #2, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?

And you could say it boils down to the following: Is there an "intent" behind all of reality?

Now, culpability is a pain in the ass. I think deterministic beings are incapable of intent, because intent is something that requires free-will. It's a philosophical notion. Wants, desires, etc.. They're illusions.

I'd like to think, however, if there is some being that had or has free-will, then it was or is culpable, thus had intent. With that said, everything occurring around us has a "reason" for occurring.

Philosophers of old wanted to know if there was a Truth to be known, much like saying there is a God to be known. Carl Jung was touching on whether or not there is meaning to anything in reality, whether or not there is intent behind space-time events and their occurrence.

And I'd like to bring up the simulation argument, whereby reality is a virtual simulation. Under that premise, you can start arguing there is intent.

A video game designer often has various intents with designing a game. In general, with modern society the way it is, the "intent" is to entertain, thus make money for the company by getting people to buy something entertaining. But I like to take things a little further and look at the details of the game, what was behind each of the aspects in the game.

And I like to look at things in the game, such as when people question if there is a God. Because it's not people questioning if there is a God: It's "God" having programmed them to question if there is a "God," which seems kind of like a silly thing to do.

Imagine a game programmer making an NPC question in the game, upon approaching and interacting with the NPC, if there is a programmer. So, let's saying I'm playing a game and I come across an NPC. I press "X" or whatever controller button and it says, "I wonder if there is a programmer that created me."

Well, certainly there was. And it was the programmer that "caused" the NPC to state such. And if you look around the "real" world, there is a lot of the same going on. People question if there is a God.

I take it in two possible ways:

Now, of curious note is whether or not I can engage in "self-reflection" in order to say, "That's not funny."

Self-reflection could just as well be an illusion. Thus, any chance of self-reflection being a delusion of my mind. But in my believed self-awareness, I look at a person questioning God's existence as something pre-planned since the dawn of existence. And my own observation of this individual as also pre-planned since the beginning of time. Thus, I even further question, "What's the point?"

Before philosophyforums.com was hacked, there was something I was touching on in relation to Rene Descartes. What that was, was how there has been a lack of literature touching on Descartes' demon.

The problem I have is that Descartes has no legitimate reason to believe his senses are correct. The phrase "I think; therefore I am" is flawed. Along a time-space spectrum, his thinking occurs along various points in times as does his identity. As a Buddhist concept, the self is changing, one flame on a candle being transferred to another candle. So, he is never the same self as he is contemplating his own existence: He is simply deceived as to having a whole "self."

Thus, the demon, metaphorically, is his ignorance. However, I can take this a step further and actually bring a demon into existence, as much as bringing a God into existence. The idea that God is the Truth is an issue, because if God is everything, then God is not only the Truth but also The Illusion. And, sure enough, God eludes us all, thus being a masterful illusionist preventing its existence being known.

But I think the illusion is the demon, the ignorance. Synonymous.

So, with that, I'd like to put forth that reality may as well be an illusion. It's both an illusion and the truth. The truth is that reality is an illusion.
Read and comment on the full post

Here is a list of topics that I want to write about:

Now, someone might ask, "What do you mean does most of the world have schizoaffective disorder?"

We have a world where people believe in free will, use words that imply having free will at some point in time, and the such: People believe they somehow are "free" and able to escape determinism, eternalism, etc.. the such. Now, if we take certain philosophical paradigms as true, then yeah, the majority of the world is straight-up bonkers. I'm not sure we can say they are legally insane. We "can't," if we say we don't have free-will. Does it qualify as legal insanity? Are the necessary criteria met? Well, again, that's like asking if I "can" even cause a criteria set to occur.

So, there ends up being a breakdown of language. Deconstructive nihilism.

If I were to empathize, though, legal insanity tends to be thinking people are something other than they really are: You think you see a bear rather than actually seeing a human. Being delusional means you believe something that is not true. And the sticky issue becomes, "What is true?" "How do you define Truth?" "How do you define what is true?"

So, I would posit that it's true that free will does not exist. So, that kills morality, the idea of responsibility.

I guess if there is no responsibility, one might posit there is no "meaning" to life, as one is not responsible to accomplish anything in one's lifetime.
Read and comment on the full post

Something that keeps getting on my nerves is the whole Benjamin Libet experiment issue, whereby people argue that you don't have "Free will" but you have "Free won't."

First off, I've not completely examined the Benjamin Libet experiments, the published papers, and so forth. Ok, that's fine. I could go down to a medical library or the public library, request the papers electronically, and start reading them. It's all hearsay, anyway, so what's it matter?

Regardless, were I to consider the validity of the papers and experimental results, then a person might find anything I have to say worth something. That doesn't mean the whole "free won't" thing is not crap. Because I highly suspect that it's exactly that: Bullshit. Authors in Scientific American and Psychology Today more than likely undergo cognitive dissonance and end up contradicting themselves.

Here's someone's definition of "free won't,"

- source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need

Ok, so there are issues. Once again, there is, as cited and sourced, the pushing forward of the premise by an author that there is "free will." Ok, so the author in that source is like, "Well, there isn't free will. Well, ok, there is free will, but I'm going to change its definition to make it exist: it's now called free won't. And, sure, I contradicted myself and changed what free will is called rather than changing it's definition, but I don't think most people will notice."

One is the linguistic use of the word "can," which brings in the philosophy of language. I want to write an article or blog entry about how I believe most of the world has schizoaffective disorder. When people use words, such as "try," "can," "will," or "want," then they are using a set of words that are part of a "free will lexicon."

Imagine a world where people didn't use words or language that implied that somehow they have free will and are able to "change" reality as it is.

 
Read and comment on the full post

Discussion about Cantor's first proof using the next-interval-function, potential and actual infinity. Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of real numbers is the first rigorous demonstration of the notion of uncountability. Countable sets can be put into a list indexed with natural numbers. If a set cannot be listed, then, it has more members than the set of natural numbers and is uncountable. Cantor's first proof is a proof by contradiction. First, he supposes that all real numbers are listed in any order by the list X=(x1, x2, x3 …). Then, a real number out of this list is found by using a series of intervals, contradicting that X lists all real numbers.

Please read the article at

PDF On Cantor's first proof of uncountability

http://pengkuanonmaths.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-cantors-first-proof-of-uncountability.html

or Word https://www.academia.edu/22104462/On_Cantors_first_proof_of_uncountability
Read and comment on the full post

Always a good feeling when wrapping up a book or a course. This is the first of my course reviews. Apparently, I take them as a hobby.

HarvardX: PH207x Health in Numbers: Quantitative Methods in Clinical & Public Health Research

Available on edX.

What it teaches:

Harvard's introductory course to biostatistics, which is statistics which focuses on public health models and analysis, and epidemiology, which is an investigation of the causes of diseases and conditions and their correlations. Epidemiology uses various case studies as frameworks to set up valid analysis for biostatistics.

Harvard taught these as two different courses, and this course is a fusion. The course also teaches how to use the

statistical software package Stata for assistance. It also introduces guest lecturers who lead the class in critiquing published case papers.

PH207x was planned as a 12 week course. If you already have a knowledge of statistics, you can probably fly through it. Most of the online homework questions refer to basic calculations and concepts.

Input[1]:

Basic fluency of algebra. Computer literacy.

Output:

Ability to understand basic statistics [2].

Ability to critique papers on epidemiological studies.

Ability to assist in biostatistics and epidemiology data analysis.

Ability to use basic Stata analysis.

Mixers:

Principles of Biostatistics (co-written by one of the lecturers, reviewed earlier in this blog)

Stata software package. Version 12 was used in the class, 14 was used for this review. Differences are mostly trivial[3].

Why You Should Take This Course:

First, if you have no prior knowledge of statistics, learning the subject is very informative. Statistics allows you to account for variability, probability, and prediction. Statistics gives you a set of tools which I find to be just as interesting and valuable as those from calculus. Second, you will be able to call bullshit on many claims given by people not just on statistics, but on health and nutrition as well. You'll know what makes a valid analysis and what to ask for evidence. Third, it was fun to see what a proper statistical program can do.

Do I recommend it?

Yes. The two instructors are well-versed and communicate their lectures very well. The textbook is lucid and not very formal, which is fine for applied mathematics. I had no problem understanding the material. For a very small investment: algebra and computer literacy, you get many useful rewards. Most especially, statistical analysis is a tool that isn't just limited to public health, but a wide amount of sciences, and I highly recommend learning it.

[1] What skills you need to properly process the course.

[2] The course will introduce linear and logistic regression, then recommend another course in regression.

[3] A calculator was relocated, and pseudo-random seeds will not be the same.
Read and comment on the full post

I just want to acknowledge the contributions of two teams to the discovery of gravitational waves. These groups are only part of the wider community and I highlight them for purely personal reasons.

The Polish group

The Virgo-POLGRAW group,  lead by   Prof. Andrzej Królak at IMPAN.

The Welsh group

The Cardiff Gravitational Physics Group,  and within that the Data Innovation Institute lead by Prof Bernard F Schutz.

 
Read and comment on the full post

I think science ends up failing as a system and methodology. I think the idea of testability and falsifiability ends up getting thrown away. The Daoist anarchists more than likely had things right: Things are what they are. That's like saying life is a movie. Sure, something about reality could change and people start flying and mentally "willing" magic from their fingertips.

More importantly is looking at things I tried covering some time ago: Einstein's theories of relativity and the philosophical influence it has. If we're in a block universe, static as can be, the ideas of repeatability and testability are ideas that require free-will to be accomplished. I think reality ends up becoming a psychological experience, whereby the existential crisis is resolved by the perpetuation of insanity and delusion. Falsification as an idea is an axiological one, whereby in a physicalist reality, there can be no right nor wrong.

So, science dies. The human race ends up in turmoil due to not being able to find any decent resolves of answering the why and hows of reality came to be. Perhaps Gödel's incompleteness theorem is what drives life into insanity or seeking some reclusive state of mind to never question reality again, thus preventing existential issues. Personally, I've considered the reason we can never fully understand reality is because "God" or the universe didn't/doesn't want us to: If you understand how things came to be, maybe you could destroy them. In terms of a pain/suffering perspective of life, ending suffering means ending reality: Absolute prevention.

Those are long-term things. Short-term things involve the evolution of STEM. I see transhumanists coming into being if politicians don't corrupt everything with their greed. With transhumanists, I see society becoming a Type III civilization, looking for other life-forms. I don't think that will resolve much. Issues such as parallel dimensions, the multiverse, etc.. may come into fruition or at least be observed. The ability to make or observe such may come into fruition.

I see the ideal transhumanist discovering the emotional connectivity with reality, thus being able to manipulate reality with the mind. But at no time do I see the resolve for philosophical problems. The grandfather paradox (time traveler's paradox) and other issues stick around. Reality becomes a one-track situation. One could only hope for a deus ex machine situation, whereby an individual sits in the driver-seat of God, becoming master of reality in order to change things, thus paradoxes not being an issue.

I think neuroscience is going to head in the direction where people walk around like Dr. Gero from Dragon Ball Z with their brains in robot bodies. It resolves a lot of issues, thus enabling focus on regeneration and restoration to decaying brain parts. I like to think neural Darwinism due to the mechanisms that exist now would beat out any engineering "attempt" to make something better in the next million years. If that hypothesis is wrong, something could be engineered.

With the brain isolated and the body no longer an issue, people will have the opportunity to live long lives and focus on philosophical issues and understanding the "physical" nature of reality. From there, they can get their Star Trek or Stargate on. That doesn't necessitate anything will be resolved, though. The expansion of the universe will be an issue. If something can be engineered to bounce back thing, great. Punch wormholes, manipulate reality, travel the cosmos, look for other life.

I guess that's the say science eventually hits a brick wall: The philosophical issues remain. Sure, it'd be great if a scientific description of God could occur. And God might be best described as "the first cause" or "what caused the universe to occur," if you want to claim that's quantum fluctuations, some obscure physical phenomenon, etc.. It's a definitional issue.

Scientifically, I see God as an infinite-dimensional being, thus allowing it to have free-will. It may or may not be logical.

I see the transhumanists taking over for the most part. But with the issues of not seeing time travelers or aliens, it makes a person question if individuals in the "future" are extremely capitalistic or secretive: Selfish vs. reclusive. I think the latin description of science being knowledge is one thing: It's another to take a perspective that science is what a person uses to accomplish a desire. There are those who engage in science to understand and describe reality as it is. There are others who believe science can be used to understand, describe, and manipulate reality. The last part might seem like a feat of engineering, perhaps at least requiring free-will if not a break in reality: Arguable, any attempt could be the delusional acts of an individual desiring something more from reality.

Some transhumanist schools have leaned toward hedonism, which I suppose is to battle the existential crisis. My subscribed school is truth-seeking, thus is more interested in what exists and does not exist in reality. It may be that "truth" is never found. I'd like to think that if any transhumanist figured out reality, he or she would have found the off-switch, thus putting the universe to an end. My continued existence in reality, as I type this, appears to be evidence that confirms no transhumanist has done such.

An evidential interpretation of my place in reality convinces me that God is not dead. God being reality, nature, all of existence, etc.. God is not dead. As long as God can be defined, God is not dead. As long as there is a definition for God, God is not dead. That doesn't necessarily mean that one can bring forth a definition in "court," which might be the only place a definition matters. But the paradoxical relationship between there not being evidence of a God yet still existing seems to only bring forth a solipsistic view of reality, which might be the unfortunate situation of reality.

It could be that reality is simply the mind of God, everything in reality all pre-planned. So, I would say, ideally, science would find a way to kill God. But I also think it's interesting that nature, reality, and the universe has even allowed at least one individual to think about doing such. But that doesn't mean it will be possible: And eventually, it appears the death of reality never occurs. It becomes questionable, on a philosophical level, why the universe never dies, doesn't want to die, or at least doesn't end. It's just not part of reality for reality to die.

The thing missing from science is free-will, which science ends up not doing anyone any "good," which is an axiological ideal requiring free-will in the first place. That may or may not be reasonable, but I think matters of axiological necessitate free-will to exist in the first place.

If you look at medicine, you see the issue. I think the issue with making a stem-cell treatment for AIDs started to show the issue. People tried replicating the stem-cell treatment by breaking bones, something like that, and entering in stem cells that won't get infected by HIV, and it just wasn't successful. It could be the discovery wasn't correct. It could be that free-will is necessary to implement the treatment. A treatment is never conducted. That would require free-will. Doctors would need free-will to treat a patient. Otherwise, it's just the flow of reality. It ends up appearing a huge situation of chemotaxis. A chemical soup looking for a chemical treatment to alter its chemical makeup. There's a philosophical topic that deals with that: It goes along the lines that if someone is going to heal, they'll heal as part of what's in the great design of reality.

Science ends up going so far as it can be implemented for engineering purposes. It only goes so far for truth-seeking purposes. And it goes only so far to resolve philosophical topics. Once it hits the glass-ceiling, it's done for.

I think you look around, no time travelers or aliens: It hits the brick wall in the future. The engineering uses seem to be moot. Otherwise, we'd have time travelers around talking about the scientific methodology they used to come back, the science behind "time-space" that their time machine or machine uses.

I don't think that means a spiritual enlightenment occurs: I've come across various spiritualists who argue that being alive is about "loving" others, so I'd imagine that any transcendent beings would come back to our timeline to describe how we can transcend ourselves: Kind of like Morpheus in the Matrix movie helping out Neo to seek the truth. I grew up around a person who believed/(s) in the ascended master theology.

I think the utilitarians and various transhumanists are looking into futures and considering hedonism to be the only thing worth doing. Science is a descriptive technique. Engineering a creative one. If either is an art, either may as well by a sophism.

 
Read and comment on the full post

I have a hypothesis about reality and God.

Imagine God is free-will and all that can be. Each timeline and universe that is created is a "choice" that God makes. And essentially, God is attempting to figure out how to find another God.

Each extension is a time-line or universe. They end up being deterministic. They can, however, go back into the pool of what God is. Each time an extension occurs, it's influenced by what is outside of it, thus causing God to change. With that said, one might say, "What's the point," and I think my answer is that "God" is learning. God has free-will, makes universes, but finds itself "imperfect" despite being perfect. It's attempting to figure out if there is more to its existence than simply being.

My hypothesis is that God is looking for another God.

I like to postulate that God is insane. Let's say schizophrenia or insanity is a complete break from logic, thus being able to step out of the realm of logic. Something about Mental State "x" enables a break from logic. That might mean breaking free from constraints. If God is all that can be, logically so, then logically there can't be another God. But being God, if God can break logic, then God would be looking for another God. It wouldn't be logical. So, it's questionable what to make of it, even if it were possible. Logically, not so, but then the question becomes what kind of "system" or "methodology" is being used to accomplish such.

I think the answer is that God is attempting to break its own ignorance. That's like saying, God thinks its the only God yet ignorant of how it would be possible for there to be another: Thus, it's engaging in a method to break its ignorance of what would be necessary to find another God. You might say, then, that God is not God: And that might be the logical answer. But if the system is not dependent on logic, then logic is thrown out the window.
Read and comment on the full post

What if... what if ...

Well, let me throw out an idea: everything that could exist does exist. Infinite universes seems to create the issue that if there is a person that can cause something to occur, there is another that would cancel out that possibility, thus making it feel as though there is one universe.

Imagine the following:

There exists a person in a universe that cause A to occur. There exists a person in a universe that can prevent A to occur. Their existences cancel out, thus giving the appearance there is no multiverse. But then you might make the logical argument that if a person can travel to this universe, then he or she cannot be prevented.

So, with the infinite universe idea, there MUST be a person in an outside universe who wants to let me know that he or she is (1) from another universe, (2) prove such, (3) do such right now. I looked around me after typing such, and encountered no such being: One might take such to be evidence of absence that there are not infinite universes, thus the multiverse idea is not practical, at least for there to be infinite universes.

Part of me, then has been considering what if there is an aspect of reality, however, that does exist. Let's call this the realm of the "imaginary." It exists. It's a dimension of it's own. And it's "imaginary," whereby it's like a Platonic realm where crossover is possible.

I'll throw a bone and give an example.

In Dragon Ball Z, Goku learns to go faster than light after he learns instant transmission. As such, he has become a master of reality in his dimension.

You might think that's questionable. Let's take Goku and throw him in the hypercube shown in the Cube 2 movie. Goku would use his brute strength and instant transmission, and he would more than likely get out of there real fast. You might posit that a 5th dimensional being would be able to see the maze for what it is, but Goku uses brute strength (using FTL technology: instant transmission) and gets out after using a brute force hacking methodology of using every combination of getting out of there.

Now let's take that knowledge a step further. Goku exists inside his dimension. Interestingly, using his FTL knowledge, he figured out his reality is like a hypercube. He found a way out. Making things more interesting, it possible that the Goku that comes back to Earth from space is actually a damn lie. Everything you see Goku doing on television is a damn lie. The cell games: A damn lie. Fighting buu: A damn lie. The only Goku you need to concern yourself is the Goku that occurs once he learns FTL technology.

If we argue that being able to master FTL technology provides an individual to live an infinite if not close to infinite amount of time, that's like saying Goku spent an infinite amount of time in his reality, coming to understand the aspects of reality that he was bound in, and eventually finding an exit door. And with that, he might have come to realize there are people observing him on the television screen. And once he learned that, he created a huge number of illusions to prevent anyone from following him, catching up to him, and taking him down. After Goku learned FTL technology, he soon enough found out how to travel to another dimension.

I guess if anyone follows Flash or The Flash comics, something similar happens with The Flash. The thing is, however, a person argues that these individuals are of "fantasy." Well, so is the number "one." But we don't generally attribute characteristics to the number one, such as the ability to engage in FTL travel.

So it comes to the next question, why would an individual deceive others as to him or herself being a multiverse being, that there being a multiverse, and teaching others how to go into the multiverse. I think the answer is that there is something axiological about it. If one uses empathy, one could consider that amount of heroic nature an individual must possess to be able to involve him or herself with such matters. A level of social order or innature knowledge of social order would be necessary. This seems to contradict with multiverse beings that are discussed in comics: I don't know if the Beyonder would contradict such.

A person might ask what gave me these ideas. I'd have to say it was the curious nature of observing some animes, thinking to myself, "Wouldn't it be peculiar if x, y, z occurred in the anime?" and then such happening shortly soon enough in the episode I was watching. It was at the least worthy of raising an eyebrow, that such was either a coincidence or something.

But I do think there is one other thing worthy of mention here. Something that leads me to believe if not question the multiverse. It's something that has caused me to question if we live in something like Valhalla. It's "new evidence." It's a concept in court.

New evidence is anything that wasn't presented when it could have been presented as evidence. But what if a God or Goddess your worship is someone or something that can carry you through to victory in a court case. If somehow you lose the case, does that mean your God or Goddess was falsified? Well, under total falsification, you might consider that in no way will your God or Goddess present itself in reality again to save your arse from potentially harmful issues in court. However, there have been interesting things going on in reality: Loki, Thor, Jesus, Moses, etc... find their ways into our media still. Gods and Goddesses of old have found their ways into our reality, coming back from the "dead" to persist. And with that, I think that's about the only way to argue that, yes, Thor exists.

 
Read and comment on the full post

Sometimes I think to myself the following:

If you haven't seen a time traveler or alien yet, you're doomed. If no one has seen a time traveler or alien yet, we're all doomed.

The lack of time travelers and aliens seems to create a significant evidential aspect to further the existential crisis. Part of me wants to ask, "How long would it take a reasonable person to discover alien life?"

Maybe I've come across a time traveler. Maybe I've come across an alien. And, sure, I probably shouldn't have been doing some "unethical" things at the time. But I attest that my encountering of them didn't seem to solve any of the more complex philosophical issues that we humans already deal with. But, I think if I learned something, then it's that they want to be able to figure out how to break paradoxes, especially the time traveler's paradox.

With aliens, I think to myself that there may be biological life out there in the cosmos, but it might not be "intelligent." As a neuroscientist, I well enough understand intelligence to be relative. Thus, my issue is more with whether or not these biological entities can grasp philosophical conundrums, such as the meaning of existence, what is "truth," and whether or not there can be any feasible objectives to pursue while in existence.

So, with aliens, it could well enough be that there are evolved lifeforms but they aren't much more communicative than cockroaches, germs, or armadillos. Their life styles don't require that they look much further than around them rather than above them. Looking back at my education, humans tended to have looked at the sky, questioning the greater aspects of reality and whether or not there was something "out there," but given that the universe has lifeforms that don't question, interrogate, or find concerning what is "out there," there would never have been a necessitate aspect to move beyond their planet.

Sure, it would be interesting for there to be other life forms, but more interesting is if their knowledge of metaphysics and reality has surpassed our own, finding answers to what we find to be philosophical matters that are unsolvable.

No time travelers, no aliens... it seems like no hope. It starts to create evidence of absence, whereby I question if the human race is doomed. Sure, well enough, there might be aliens and time travelers moving around in reality, competing against each other for possession of reality itself. As I once explained to someone, if we could build a time machine and understand reality quite well, more than likely, there would be what I call "the race to zero."

Imagine you could inject yourself into the beginning of time. All you have to do is move some particles around in the right way, and you've completely manipulated time and space and the way reality will unfold. It becomes an issue of control. It might make an individual feel God-like, but not necessarily make someone God. It would, nonetheless, change reality, thus possibly change the futures of societies and cultures from coming into existence. And any aliens or time travelers aware of such a person "wanting" to do such might compete against the individual to "prevent" such from occurring.

So, perhaps there are aliens and time travelers, but they have more important issues to attend to, more important matters that secure their existence in reality.

I think the Fermi paradox is a serious matter. Even if there was other intelligent life, I'm sure they would be considered with issues, such as the existential crisis. They might come across matters of religion. Perhaps it could be posited that God simply wants people to believe whatever they want, thus to find fulfillment in life: But then, one might insist such a philosophy would necessitate free-will.

Personally, I would think if time travelers or aliens existed, they would be concerned with resolving matters of metaphysics and reality.
Read and comment on the full post

As of late, people viewing my posts might think that they are unusual, pseudoscience, and whatnot. That's fine. Feel free to argue against anything I say.

I'm starting to hypothesize various aspects about reality not necessarily being what they are. That's due to me taking various perspectives of "law" and reality and experimenting with them. In a lot of ways, what has peaked my interest is the concept of "court," which I consider to be a Platonic form.

Neuroscience meeting law is similar to philosophy meeting law. Where I see the line is between the conscious experience and the funneling of a "moral" system into reality, whereby a moral system is the entrance of some kind of "free will" ideal into a reality where there may or may not be free will. What I've found is that I consider "court" to be a concept similar to a Platonic form, so I will set forward a definition of court here:

Court is where fantasy meets reality. To a purist, one might argue that there can be no such thing as fantasy, thus all things are reality. Thus, I can further argue and posit the term "fantasy" and the term "imaginary."

Fantasy is theoretical, hypothetical, imaginative, untouchable, and yet existing. It's observed through a glass window to exist but never touchable. It's tangible aspects are questionable, but it's observable.

For anyone who has ever studied law, law is like a religion. However, as the same time, it's something that exists in this reality. And with law, there is a God, which is the reasonable person. I think the bigger aspect of all of this is furthering defining what "court" is: Court is the mind of God.

Nonetheless, there is something I'd like to speculate on. Interestingly, everything that exists outside of court is "hearsay." Everything that exists outside of it is hearsay. That's like saying it's black magic, rumor, etc.. If you look at it, then, every court hearing that has ever existed is fraudulent. By the standards of man, any word that comes out of any person's mouth is hearsay in the court of law. The word "dog," it meaning, etc... are all things that come from outside of court.

Court is an illusion. As the mind of God, it knows the truth, the reasonable answer of resolve, and so forth. Nonetheless, it's deceptive. These are my "scientific" perspectives on Court. Court, nonetheless, has entered itself into reality. It exists as a mechanism of adversarial dispute and resolve. It's meant to be a truth-seeking mechanism, as science is meant to be a truth-seeking if not a mechanism to discover aspects of reality and describe them to form knowledge.

The significant difference appears to be in objective: One to understand the social fabric of reality, the other to understand the physical fabric of reality. Law vs. science. The entrance of psychologism, however, seems to cause the lines between both to blur if we consider knowledge or what is "truth" to be a psychological consensus occurrence: Mobocratic truth, Kuhnian.

 
Read and comment on the full post

Gridlock is the situation where there is difficulty getting government to work because the  two legislative houses or the executive branch and the legislature are controlled by different political parties, or otherwise cannot agree.

Read and comment on the full post

Donald Trump is a global warming denier who spouts

goofy arguments to support his denial.

As a result of winter storm Jonus,

Baltimore just had the worst one day

snow storm on record. Trump apparently thinks that

this indicates that assertions of

Global Warming are part of a hoax.

Read and comment on the full post

This article discusses the uncountability of the power set of ? proven by using the out-indexes subset contradiction. Cantor's theorem proves that the power set of ? is uncountable. This is a proof by contradiction. Suppose that the power set of ? is countable. This allows us to put all subsets of ? in a list. The contradiction will come from the indexes.

Please read the article at

PDF On the uncountability of the power set of ?

http://pengkuanonmaths.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-uncountability-of-power-set-of.html

or Word https://www.academia.edu/21601620/On_the_uncountability_of_the_power_set_of_N

Read and comment on the full post

Paraphrasing what he said:

I think he was willing to accept that there are still some classical open problems, but essentially he thought that mathematics was now 'done and dusted'.

Of course this cannot be the case, as evidence I offer all the preprints that appear on the arXiv everyday. Mathematics departments are not full of people who just teach linear algebra and calculus to engineering students! I also submit that my boss Prof. Grabowski would be wondering what I am doing day in day out!

But why would he think mathematics research is over?

High School Mathematics

I think this belief stems from mathematics teaching in schools. Let me explain...

Let us start with physics and science in general. Students and the public at large know that scientists are working on open problems and discovering new things. For example we hear about new materials (eg. graphene); we know that the likes of Hawking are wrestling with the theory of black holes; we see images of all kinds of things in observational cosmology; we hear about medical scientists working on cancer cures; biologist discovering new species can make the news; CERN discovered the higgs boson...

High school students are aware that science is far from over and the syllabus for A-level physics is periodically updated to reflect some of these new discoveries.

But what about mathematics?

Linear algebra first emerged in 1693 with the work of Leibniz. By about 1900 all the main ingredients were know, so vectors have a modern treatment by 1900. This is all quite dated, but some open questions remain (for example in relation to quantum information theory).

Quadratic functions were solved by Euclid (circa 300 BC) and 'the formula' was known to Brahmagupta by 628 AD.

Calculus the foundations are from the 17th century in the works of Newton and Leibniz.

Plane geometry goes back to 300 BC and Euclid. Coordinate geometry is due to Descartes in the 1600's.

Probability theory has it origins in Cardano's work in the 16th century. Fermat and Pascal in the 17th century also made fundamental advances here.

Logarithms and exponentials in their modern form is due to Euler in the 18th century.

Trigonometry has roots going back to the Greek mathematicians from the 3rd century BC. Islamic mathematicians by the 10th century were using all six trigonometric functions.

So in sort, much of the typical pure mathematics syllabus at advanced level in high school is quite old. This I think, together with the 'unchanging' nature of mathematics (once proven a statement is always true) leads to the idea that it is all done already and nothing new can be discovered.

It also take from my friends question that he understood that the applications of mathematics are important and that plenty of work in applied mathematics is going on, for example in computational approaches to chemical dynamics. However, the ideas that mathematics as mathematics is finished remained.

For me personally, these applications of mathematics can lead to new structures in mathematics and this is worth studying. Indeed much of my professional work is in studying geometries inspired by applications in physics, particularly mechanics and field theory.

What can be done?

The 'unchanging' nature of mathematics is hard to get around. In science some new evidence could come to light and change our views. Indeed the scientific method is an integral part of teaching physics at advanced level in the UK. This 'flexibility' of science to adapt is important in student understanding of the philosophy of science.

So, we could try to promote new discoveries in mathematics to the general public, including high school students. The problem is that the background needed to understand the questions, let alone have any idea about the solutions prevents wide public engagement. Astronomers are lucky, we have all seen stars in the sky and can admire nice pictures!

Trying to start at a much higher level of mathematics would be futile, given the prerequisites that are needed. Moreover, most students will not become researchers in mathematics and will only need to be comfortable applying basic mathematics to their later field of study and work.

In short I have no idea how to promote the idea that mathematics research is not over, but please take my word it is not over!

Read and comment on the full post

This article uncovers a hidden assumption that the diagonal argument needs, then, explains its implications in matter of infinity. The use of the diagonal digits imposes a condition unnoticed until now. If this assumption were found false, the conclusion of the diagonal argument should be rewritten.

Please read the article at

PDF Hidden assumption of the diagonal argument http://pengkuanonmaths.blogspot.com/2016/01/hidden-assumption-of-diagonal-argument.html

or Word https://www.academia.edu/20805963/Hidden_assumption_of_the_diagonal_argument

Read and comment on the full post

Scattered in my readings are interesting historical tidbits. I enjoy history, because it allows you to learn from other people's mistakes. I don't have a favorite place or time in history, but I like the history of inventions and ideas. How people approached and devised a solution to a problem, either scientific, or military, or even just in general. I also enjoy being corrected (or correcting others.. heh) in misapprehensions about history.

So here's a question: how old is life insurance?

I shan't lead you on: 2600 years, give or take. The Romans and Greeks had guilds which a person would pay into, and they would take care of funeral expenses and stipends for the family of the deceased. The concept of insurance in general goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, which gave a form of maritime insurance to those who take a loan and lose a ship at sea. If you think about it, the idea of property insurance is just a redistribution of risk from taking out a loan. Loans are a result of an individual or organization having a surfeit of money and wishing to invest. Money itself is a shorthand for transfer of goods and labor, which comes from a settled, agricultural society[1]. So property insurance itself isn't that complicated, it just naturally arises from money. Life insurance is a little more complex, but it too naturally arises from property insurance.

[1] I neglected to mention trade as a factor, which is a whole topic in itself: measuring investment against the risk of maritime loss. I do not exaggerate when I say that trade is perhaps one of the hugest factors in world history, and is often hidden as a motivation in high school textbooks.
Read and comment on the full post

All you have to do is follow this link.

Read and comment on the full post

There's an interesting game called Katamari Damacy where you, the Prince, are charged to make katamari, which is Japanese for "a jumble", "mass", or "cluster". You roll small things which snowball into larger ones and thus into huge katamari and you present them, under a deadline, to The King of All Cosmos, who then makes it into a new star.

That's if you make the deadline. The King is quite cross with you if you don't make it. One of those little speeches goes (from memory).

"There you are, always in the middle of things, never quite finishing anything!!!

Blogs are like being in the middle of things. So rarely do they start from a proper beginning, with a proper introduction. At least, perhaps the good ones do. People like to talk about themselves, which is often Not Very Interesting. I'd rather talk about other things and inform the reader prior to when they need information about how I view things or operate. Here and there I'll leave clues perhaps to who I am, but its really not that important.

So this first post is a review of the book Introduction into Biostatistics by Marcello Pagano and Kimberlee Gauvreau. This is the second edition. I suppose I should inform you[1] that I have a habit of studying textbooks and courses. There is an excellent resource for courses called EdX, with top level university courses. Introduction to Biostatistics (henceforth abbreviated to ItB) is the textbook for the

PH207x Health in Numbers: Quantitative Methods in Clinical & Public Health Research

I prefer to go through the entire textbook and do all of the problems before taking a course. Hermione would be proud. I tried reading the textbook and doing all of the problems with the course, but some instructors jump around the textbook a bit, which is fine for them but distracting for me.

I do not have a medical or statistics background. I do have a Baccalaureates in Electrical Engineering. So my mathematics background is multivariable calculus, ordinary differential equations, probability, discrete math (which I enjoyed the most), and some linear algebra. Probability is taught to EE's as a component to separating noise in radio communications, but we never quite got to that part in the course, which makes me cross. We also never got around to using ODEs in electronics as well. *grumble emoji would go here*

Prior to reading this textbook, I knew what means, medians, and modes were, but I couldn't rightfully tell you what a p value was. I am absolutely delighted by this textbook, which serves as an introduction to a large set of new and fascinating tools. The book is composed of 22 chapters, each ranging from 20 to 40 pages long, and ends with 10 to 20 questions. I never had a problem understanding the material, and only towards the end on the topic of linear regression is when the text started to gloss a bit over information, which is fine for an introductory textbook. Linear regression is also where I started leaning on software packages for analysis, since performing linear regression on a data set of 100 entries seemed unnecessarily tedious. For most of the book I was fine using online web pages for making graphs and lengthy calculations, though I tried to do some things by hand for understanding's sake.

Introduction into Biostatistics uses real information and has many references and sources, which is a bonus. The real data made me feel like I was doing actual work and not playing with made up numbers. I did not have access to an answer key (or even half a key as most textbooks provide), but at no point did I feel lost. I might have an unresolved error here or there, but the nature of the problems was that I felt I could always answer them with the information given in the chapter. The book expects you to use either Minitab or Stata with it and does not teach you how to use these packages, so if you're not computer savvy, you may have some confusion.

Overall I am very happy with what I learned and the material wasn't difficult at all. I consider statistics to be a very welcome addition to my toolbox of problem solving. I look forward to taking the EdX course, which combines biostatistics with epidemiology and Pagano is one of the instructors of the course.

[1] I'm thinking of a name for the reader, Gentle Reader is taken by Miss Manners. Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope used the Teeming Millions to refer to his readership. I'll think about an original name, but let's keep the ball rolling. Suggestions are welcome.
Read and comment on the full post

The value of a decimal number depends on the number of its digits. For irrational numbers that have infinity of digits, their values seem to be definitive. However, the meaning of infinity is ambiguous because there exist several kinds of infinities. If the infinity used to define the number of digits is not clear, the values of irrational numbers will not be well defined. This is why we have to answer the question of the title.

Please read the article at

PDF Which infinity for irrational numbers? http://pengkuanonmaths.blogspot.com/2016/01/which-infinity-for-irrational-numbers.html

or Word https://www.academia.edu/20147272/Which_infinity_for_irrational_numbers
Read and comment on the full post

This article explains why the cardinality of a set must be either Aleph0 or |?|.

1. Rational numbers are discrete

2. Real numbers are continuous

3. Collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive events

4. Continuum hypothesis

5. Cardinality of discontinuous subsets of real numbers

Please read the article at

PDF Continuous set and continuum hypothesis

http://pengkuanonmaths.blogspot.com/2015/12/continuous-set-and-continuum-hypothesis.html

or

Word https://www.academia.edu/19589645/Continuous_set_and_continuum_hypothesis

Read and comment on the full post