swansont Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 ! Moderator Note As has already pointed out, language is a convention, not a scientific law. This discussion does not fall under the umbrella of speculations, but as long as no rules are being broken, I'll move it to the lounge, and remind people that participation is voluntary. If you find the argument silly and have nothing constructive to add, then you should choose to stay out of it. The OED recently included a definition of literally to include something that is not literally true. The OP's contention that this can't happen is falsified. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10240917/Uproar-as-OED-includes-erroneous-use-of-literally.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syn5 Posted November 7, 2014 Author Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) The issue I am running into is conveying what in my mind appears infinitely complex, yet obviously simple. I feel my idea has not been falsified, but my improper use of written language to convey the idea has been. If like me, your mind's main method of communication is visual/emotional/intuitive then written language, a finite number of symbols trying to convey information, becomes a serious limitation. I will try to convey my idea/s again. I feel the human mind is greater than it's limited material representation allows. I ask everyone to please take the time to imagine the following. The internet. A network of minds communicating through audio/visual language. Would you agree that the internet is a version of reality limited by audio/visual language? Would you agree that internet reality is ultimately two dimensional? In that 2D world, what would one of it's inhabitants experience? What would they observe? Is what they observe and what they experience the same? What's the real reality of the inhabitant's 2D world? Is the Universe 3D? Do we experience it in 4D? Edited November 7, 2014 by Syn5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidivad Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) you need your language to actually do numerical work. where is the logical structures that complete your expressions? i would suggest an engine that follows mathematical rules. your expression instruction set also needs storage capacity. Edited November 7, 2014 by davidivad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The issue I am running into is conveying what in my mind appears infinitely complex, yet obviously simple. As I say, you need to take your time and organise your ideas and then present them in a structured way, moving logically from one step to the next, providing any necessary detail. (You can use your latest post as an example of how not to to do this.) The internet. A network of minds communicating through audio/visual language. I suppose that is a part of what defines the Internet. But I don't find it very compelling. For example, how is this different from telephones or television, or even newspapers. Would you agree that the internet is a version of reality limited by audio/visual language? No. It is not a version of reality, it is a means of communication (as you say above). Would you agree that internet reality is ultimately two dimensional? No. Unless you explain what you mean by "two dimensional" in this context. In that 2D world, what would one of it's inhabitants experience? Audio-visual communication with other inhabitants, I suppose. (According to your definition above.) What would they observe? YouTube videos of kittens, mainly. Is what they observe and what they experience the same? I'm not sure what that means. Is it the old philosophical problem of qualia? What's the real reality of the inhabitant's 2D world? It has no reality. Is the Universe 3D? Spatially yes. But that excludes time. And what does this have to do with the Internet? You are apparently making another unconnected leap. Do we experience it in 4D? We experience time and space, yes. (If that is what you mean.) That series of random statements doesn't appear to have anything to do with either your initial sentences nor with gravity. Just more random "mind pops". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 It looks to me I have seen that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syn5 Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) As I say, you need to take your time and organise your ideas and then present them in a structured way, moving logically from one step to the next, providing any necessary detail. (You can use your latest post as an example of how not to to do this.) I suppose that is a part of what defines the Internet. But I don't find it very compelling. For example, how is this different from telephones or television, or even newspapers. No. It is not a version of reality, it is a means of communication (as you say above). No. Unless you explain what you mean by "two dimensional" in this context. Audio-visual communication with other inhabitants, I suppose. (According to your definition above.) YouTube videos of kittens, mainly. I'm not sure what that means. Is it the old philosophical problem of qualia? It has no reality. Spatially yes. But that excludes time. And what does this have to do with the Internet? You are apparently making another unconnected leap. We experience time and space, yes. (If that is what you mean.) That series of random statements doesn't appear to have anything to do with either your initial sentences nor with gravity. Just more random "mind pops". Yeah, as I stated before all networks are the same, in that they connect things for a purpose. I say that's the reason the universe is a network, but also vice-versa. 0!=1? No thats not a question 0=1, 0!=1, 0!=1? or whatever symbol you like for opposites. Opposites are the same, yet obviously unique it seems. What I mean by 3D is to exist, to not exist, and to probably exist. Existance of TIME Yes = Past Probably = present No = future Existance of Space Yes = Observable Probably = Hidden No = Unobservable? What word is like future but for space? Seems to me like a 3 dimensional world where the 3 dimensions are divided into Space and Time. Edited November 8, 2014 by Syn5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 What I mean by 3D is to exist, to not exist, and to probably exist. And that's the problem. that is not what "three dimensional" means to everyone else, and certainly not to scientists. Seems to me like a 3 dimensional world where the 3 dimensions are divided into Space and Time. There are very obviously 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syn5 Posted November 8, 2014 Author Share Posted November 8, 2014 (edited) Thank you Lord! "WE" have solved the pattern of pi, of 3.14.... Thank you everybody, I always assumed everyone was me, and I was everyone, and that we are all part of a WHOLE!!!! WE ARE!! here's the math pi = 3.14159265359... (11)(9)(7)(5)(3)(2)=(1=0)= (4)(6)(8)(10)(12) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (13)(11)(9)(7)(5)(3)=(0=1)=(4)(1)(5)(9)(2) Edited November 8, 2014 by Syn5 -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Well that's meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I believe Syn5 is trying to make a fool of this forum. What is gravity? I may have the answer. I will try to explain using logic and thought experiments. Here goes nothing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 ! Moderator Note That's enough nonsense and enough soapboxing. Since the OP has obviously moved on from the topic of discussion, that indicates that the discussion is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts