Time and Space

Post Reply New Topic

Parallel lines never meet only in Euclidean and hyperbolic spaces, they do meet in spherical spaces. Our universe is very slightly hyperbolic in geometry

I am, how do you know that aging will not become preventable within our lifetimes?

It's funny, that's what I initially set out to be (I planned to major in physics and go into a theoretical branch for grad school), but then I became interested in biology. Now, after reading about string-theory, closed time-like curves and the like, I am once again being seduced by theoretical physics (though I admit I am more interested in the topological mathematical aspect of it). So again, with these summer math classes I'll see what I like. Maybe I'll stick with biology, maybe I'll go into physics and mathematics. Good luck to you in your academic pursuits, physics is supposed to be difficult, but it seems like one of the most rewarding and interesting areas of research one can go into.



Another transhumanism advocate I presume? I'm actually writing a research paper for English defending transhumanism and attacking bioconservatism. Interesting topic.

Lets just say this: its Extremely unlikely. Are you also unsure that the world isnt flat? If you are unsure about this please do tell me where the edge might be . I donno how old you are but there are SERIOUS thermodynamic barriers to those of us who are already adults to becoming immortal. The oxidative decomposition reactions that occur shortly after clinical death(which lead to 'biological death') are thermodynamically irreversible. The ONLY way to prevent aging is through major genetic modification which would have to be done during the gamete phase in order to affect EVERY cell in your body. Multicellular organisms are evolved to age-which means that the cellular repair mechanisms start to shut off by the time a person is in their 30s and 40s.

WRONG

Logic is independent of perception, in fact its independent of physical reality. Where do you come up with this BS sophistry?
Parallel line never meet in EUCLIDEAN SPACE-which is defined by the Euclidean Metric. However, 1+1 Is ALWAYS EQUAL TO 2 ! !
So why dont you tell ush Asha what the Four Basic Assumptions are that "Maths" is based on, eH.....

Classic blunder. Math is purely a priori. There is a saying that ends in "Mathematicians defer only to god himself". However, in reality, if God told us 1+1=3 we would have to conclude that we were disagreeing on one of the parts of the expression. That is, mathematics cannot be wrong. In some people's minds, this means that math, being entirely tautologous, is actually contentless and is therefore merely a product of our language rather than anything real (see for example the logical positivists).

Positive propositions about the world of our senses are invariably in doubt. Anything which depends on the outside world is uncertain; this is true.

Yes, I'm very much a Transhumanist.

Mathematics is a human construct, it is a special type of language. 1 + 1 = 2 simply because of how those symbols are defined.

Case in point.

However, there is at least a bit of a problem with this point.
Warning! Technical monologue!
Kurt Goedel proved that there exist propositions of mathematics which are true, but cannot be proven. That is to say, there exist mathematical statements which assert something in a way that cannot be concluded from the definitions of mathematics that is in fact true. In his case, he proved that mathematical statements could describe the provability of other mathematical statements (a nested metalanguage), and that no matter how we formulated math in general, it is always possible to have a statement which asserts the impossibility of its own proof, but the nonexistence of its own proof implies that it is a true metamathematical statement. Some mathematical philosophers have interpreted this as a refutation of the linguistic interpretation of mathematics: if math were simply language, then each mathematical statement would be reducible to the base assumptions of mathematics (say, the Peano Axioms); i.e., given a mathematical statement, it is simply an elaborate way of rephrasing our own definitions. However, this is just not the case, by Goedel's proof. Consequently?
Something to think about. Goedel's proofs are what got twoshots into maths in the first place.

Even relativity is relative, and uncertainty is certainly uncertain.

Therefore, we are uncertain about our relatives.

WRONG. Mathematical principles govern physical law. EVEN on the quantum level where everything is uncertain.
Symbols can be given physical representations which illustrate mathematical principles.

Last edited by D1nk0 on 26 Feb 2008, 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

CORRECT!




For example, Euclids parallel postulate. It is logically independent of the other 5 Euclidean axioms.

Ah, but the difference between Euclid's Parallel Postulate and Goedel's statements is that Euclid's postulate is just that: it is something which being independent can either be included or excluded in the formal system without issue. However, the kinds of statements Goedel came up with are not independent of the system at all: they describe a fact of the system that cannot be determined within the system, but nonetheless are true. They constitute a proof that an arithmetical system which can do even the most basic arithmetic is insufficient to determine all true facts about numbers (I'm bouncing a lot of fine nuances; all this only really applies in the strictest formality; people are quite good at reasoning outside of the rules of formal arithmetic). Very interesting stuff. If you'd like, I can recommend some books on the subject (other than the behemoth GEB)

Many philosophers might even disagree that such "immediate certainties" exist However, I am something of a believer in the Cogito myself.

GEB was a very disappointing and rather irritating book on the subject.

Mhm...........like the Axiom Of Choice.

Mathematics only DESCRIBES an approximation of physical laws. We can only know the descriptions of the approximations, the phenomenological world of experience, not the actual physical laws, the noumenological world. Mathematics is merely a tool for approximating the nature of reality, it is not part of the nature of reality.

no; you think you think, therefore you think you are. your brain could be playing memory tricks on you, and be confabulating memories regarding your identity. twenty years ago you could have been a serial killer or something, and are blocking it out. not even you are certain.

if mathe is so certain, give me the last digit of Pi...