Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

[Anthem_0]

@trabajabamos

Nope. I’m done. Happy Thanksgiving, Anthem. This is my stop and the Crazy Train can go on without me just fine; after all, I’m just a passenger. You’re the conductor.

haha, so you get called on your BS then fling one last insult before disappearing. It’s probably for the best then. Adios.

As for the rest of you who are somehow denying the way math works, a few simple questions.

1. You all do at least realize that math is circular logic right?

A=B, B=C, therefore, A=C

This is almost literally the dictionary definition of circular logic. Fill in the blanks with any WORDS you like, and you can see why this sort of logic is unacceptable in any sort of contextual language. Seriously, try it yourself and see how ridiculous that sort of logic is. A house IS a building - that doesn’t mean a building is a house. You can define 2+2 as being 4, but you CANNOT define 4 as being 2+2. Doing so is deliberately ignoring context, and math actually works BECAUSE of this principle.

Now, because math ISN’T a contextual language, and rather a formulaic one, this isn’t an issue. Math never pretended to be a contextual language…hell, man didn’t either pretend it was either until frighteningly recently. So long as you understand what math IS and, just as importantly, what math ISN’T, you can avoid pitfalls like this. Mathematicians actually know this. The fact that some of you will probably attempt to dispute this point by posting intentionally dishonest examples will speak volumes about your intentions here.

2. You all do realize that MATH is literally incapable of defining a circle, and that [every] living this on Earth is circular? Math can only approximate a circle because PI ITSELF is incalculable using math.

If you don’t believe this, tell me now what the perimeter of ANY circle is…without using Pi. Don’t sweep this issue under the rug as though it isn’t significant. Please don’t be that deliberately dishonest.

Math is cool guys, it really is. I love it and use it every day. But I also know what math is and ISN’T capable of.

I’ll be back tomorrow. I just had to post this as I’m unable to believe that some of you are actually debating simple mathematical notations.

[Czarcasm]

@Anthem_0

haha, so you get called on your BS then fling one last insult before disappearing. It’s probably for the best then. Adios.

As for the rest of you who are somehow denying the way math works, a few simple questions.

1. You all do at least realize that math is circular logic right?

A=B, B=C, therefore, A=C

This is almost literally the dictionary definition of circular logic.

Could you provide a link to any dictionary that provides a definition even close to that?

[MDKSquared]

@Anthem_0

1. You all do at least realize that math is circular logic right?

A=B, B=C, therefore, A=C

That’s not circular logic… that’s transitive property. Circular logic is where you arrive at a conclusion where that conclusion was part of your premise.

@Anthem_0

This is almost literally the dictionary definition of circular logic. Fill in the blanks with any WORDS you like, and you can see why this sort of logic is unacceptable in any sort of contextual language. Seriously, try it yourself and see how ridiculous that sort of logic is. A house IS a building - that doesn’t mean a building is a house.

You’re assuming that you should be able to stick whatever you want inside “a=b” and have it be true via symmetric property as well. Now you’re just ignoring basic mathematical principles/axioms.

a and b need to be well-formed numbers.

orange = happydance!

@Anthem_0

You can define 2+2 as being 4, but you CANNOT define 4 as being 2+2. Doing so is deliberately ignoring context, and math actually works BECAUSE of this principle.

You ignore the point. 4 can be defined in infinitely many ways. It just depends on how you want to represent your information. The information itself hasn’t changed.

@Anthem_0

Now, because math ISN’T a contextual language, and rather a formulaic one, this isn’t an issue.

Now you’re just making shit up. Math is contextual.

@Anthem_0

2. You all do realize that MATH is literally incapable of defining a circle, and that [every] living this on Earth is circular? Math can only approximate a circle because PI ITSELF is incalculable using math.

No, it can be exactly defined.

@Anthem_0

If you don’t believe this, tell me now what the perimeter of ANY circle is…without using Pi. Don’t sweep this issue under the rug as though it isn’t significant. Please don’t be that deliberately dishonest.

This is literally making my sides hurt from laughing so hard, aaahhhhhh, I really hope you’re a troll, man.
What’s sad is that I really do know people who argue as Anthem do and devote years to this crap. Let us hope Anthem is not one of them.

@Anthem_0

Math is cool guys, it really is. I love it and use it every day. But I also know what math is and ISN’T capable of.

It sure isn’t capable of granting you a real argument, that’s for sure!

@Anthem_0

I’ll be back tomorrow. I just had to post this as I’m unable to believe that some of you are actually debating simple mathematical notations.

Address my earlier arguments here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15723130&postcount=589 ; they completely tore you apart.

[MDKSquared]

Tried to edit my post to clarify something:

Math is contextual in the sense that we use different methods/systems depending on context. That doesn’t mean you can screw with the systems however you please and have it actually mean something.

Also I can show you a circle with perimeter… 1! Gasp!

[dimmy_derko]

profkeithdevlin.org

Until the nineteenth century, mathematicians viewed the discipline as a collection of procedures for solving various kinds of problems. Originally, the problems studied arose in the world. Then, in due course, the focus widened to include more abstract problems arising within mathematics itself. Proficiency in math meant being able to carry out calculations or manipulate symbolic expressions to solve problems.

By and large, high school mathematics is still very much based on that earlier tradition, so few people outside the professional mathematical community are aware that in the middle of the 19th century, a revolution took place.

Working in the revolution’s epicenter, the small university town of Göttingen in Germany, the mathematicians Lejeune Dirichlet, Richard Dedekind, and Bernhard Riemann pioneered a new, broader conception of mathematics, where the primary focus was not performing a calculation or computing an answer, but formulating and understanding abstract concepts and relationships. This was a shift in emphasis from doing to understanding.

For the Göttingen revolutionaries, mathematics was about “Thinking in concepts” (Denken in Begriffen). Mathematical objects were no longer thought of as given primarily by formulas, but rather as carriers of conceptual properties. Proving was no longer a matter of transforming terms in accordance with rules, but a process of logical deduction from concepts.

Of course, during the course of this conceptual thinking, mathematicians still made use of procedures. What changed was the primary emphasis. The reason for the change? An increase in complexity, in science, technology, business, society, and, derivatively, within mathematics itself. In a simple world, a few well-practiced procedures can generally get you by. But when things get more complex, you need understanding in order to select from a variety of different procedures, to fix old procedures that no longer work, and to develop new ones.

That makes me feel a whole lot better about not having a great grasp of the intricacies of the math in this thread.

[XRaeth]

It appears to me that you are hopelessly confused about the nature of mathematical notation and infinity. I hope you will not dismiss this post as trivial, because while you think you have the correct understanding of math, I guarantee you that it is vastly different from the WIDELY agreed upon interpretation.

I will start with the notation. First imagine a number line that contains all real numbers. We arbitrarily pick one part of the line to be the origin or “0”. It doesn’t really matter where we pick because the line extends infinitely in both directions, and all the other numbers will have a position relative to the origin.

Now when discussing a position on this number line, or a “number” we need not only it’s distance from the origin, but also its direction. We denote this with + or -.
when we say 1 + 1 we mean (+)1 + (+)1 but the positive signs in brackets are implied, because they are not negative.
(+)1: begin one unit to the right of the origin
+: move in the same direction as (or find the sum)
(+)1: one unit to the right

The result of course is 2.

if however we take (+)1 - (-)1 we get
(+)1: start one unit to the right of 0
-: move in the opposite direction of (or find the difference between)
(-): one unit to the left

The result is once again 2, and we took the same path as we did before.

My understanding of your argument is that the - sign as the subtraction operator means always move to the left no matter what. This implies that in order to get to 2 we have to go all the way past 0, past -infinity wrap around to +infinity, and come all the way to 2.
This idea is fundamentally flawed.
Infinity is not a number, it is a concept. For any real number R, infinity > R.
This means that infinity can NEVER be reached.You use the concept of infinity as a natural inversion point, but the fact is that this is a terribly unfortunate word choice to describe your ideas as it already has implications in math that are completely incompatible with your theory.

If you wish to assert that you’re understanding is superior, you will have to provide some evidence of how it can be used to solve problems that the currently accepted understanding of math cannot. There are a million arbitrary ways to understand math; mine is but one of them, and I’m sure it has its own problems. It does not however lead anyone to believe notions such as 1 + 1 != 1 - (-1) which is ridiculous on its face.

@James52637

At this point, he could say 2+2=4 and you guys would undoubtedly have some stupid convoluted argument on it with him. You’ve proven some of his points wrong, now stop acting like children and listen to the rest of what he has to say and stop being ignorant and stubborn.

In the spirit of the Straight Dope Message Board, I will take the obvious bait and disagree with you.
2 + 2 = 5 for especially large values of 2. Have a nice day.

In case you don’t get the reference, let me Google that for you.

[RaftPeople]

@Anthem_0

If you don’t believe this, tell me now what the perimeter of ANY circle is…without using Pi. Don’t sweep this issue under the rug as though it isn’t significant. Please don’t be that deliberately dishonest.

Ok.

The perimeter of that circle over there is 2 inches.

Pi was not used in this calculation.

[Dr.Colossus]

@Anthem_0

11-16-2012, 05:30 PM I’ve posted multiple times now on the only relevant math I have to add and, unsurprisingly, it’s gone completely unmentioned.

@Anthem_0

11-17-2012, 03:51 PM

I’m now ready to talk about the math behind the theory and am making a new thread because this one is a veritable clusterfuck at this point and introducing math would only continue pollute what could be an interesting discussion.

**Join me in making history. ** New thread incoming. It would be nice to keep it to math only. This one can continue for the personal berating of me, and I’ll continue to defend my ridiculous notions using no math whatsoever.
Anyway, I’ll make the math thread in a bit. We’ll see how competent you hidden math geniuses actually are.

@Anthem_0

11-17-2012, 10:59 PM
I’m too tired to make the math thread tonight. Tomorrow, gentlemen.

@Anthem_0

11-22-2012, 03:20 PM

Math is cool guys, it really is. I love it and use it every day. But I also know what math is and ISN’T capable of.

i’m going to write this real annoyingly big because you REFUSE to answer, so ignoring this will be straight avoidance by you:

WHY CAN’T YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT THE MATH?!

do you realize than your credibility is being DESTROYED not just by your backsliding, goalpost-moving, mid-argument mind-changing shifts in the “principles” of your “theory,” but MORE SO by the fact you say things that are COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

why should anyone believe you?

read your own quotes. you went from saying THERE IS NO RELEVANT MATH other than what you posted, to PROMISING you were going to “MAKE HISTORY” by posting a whole new MIND BLOWING thread of math several times–insisting you would–but you never did–and now you are once again saying how unreliable math is when it comes to your bullshit theory.

this is not just academically dishonest, it’s also regular ol’ dishonest.

if you ever want what you say to be legitimately considered, you should learn how to keep you word. you should pick a stance and stick to it–but i’m not even asking for that. i’m asking you to stop baiting people with bullshit that you actually have no intention of following through with for the sake of fluffing interest.

it makes you look unreliable.

[Gyrate]

I can’t remember (and can’t bother to go back and look) who mentioned modelling the universe in such a way that the Earth stands still and everything else moves around it in some incredibly convoluted fashion, but I find it serves as a useful metaphor for the OP’s theory. You can look at the universe as if the theory is wrong (the Earth rotates) or as if the theory is right and everyone past and present is/was wrong in some incredibly convoluted fashion (the Earth stands still). If you refuse point blank to accept that the theory might possibly be wrong then the convolutions are absolutely necessarily to justify that point of view and you’re stuck arguing that In is Out, Heat is Cold, Black is White, Night is Day and One Direction are a good band.

On the downside, come the zombie apocalypse William of Ockham is going to head straight to your house and bite your face off for being so deliberately obtuse.

[kferr]

That would be Ptolemy.

[Mangetout]

@Dr.Colossus

WHY CAN’T YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT THE MATH?!

The math is too complex. The math is quite simple. There is no math. The math will be in another thread.

The suspense is intolerable. I hope it lasts.

[Mangetout]

@Gyrate

On the downside, come the zombie apocalypse William of Ockham is going to head straight to your house and bite your face off for being so deliberately obtuse.

Ockham is quite close to Piltdown. Just saying.

[elbows]

Talk about your circular! We don’t live in 3 dimensions. No, no, no, that’s all wrong! What we live in are 2+1 dimensions, ‘Guys’, ‘fellas’, and ‘gents’. (Apparently there are no women in that ‘timeline’, how dull!)

As manifestations of some mental illness or other, it’s not too bad. Harmless, somewhat entertaining, and good busy work for the ill.

I am picturing, when he says ‘He’s got to go, and be back later…’, he’s off to group therapy!

[Evil_Captor]

Um, is it too late for me to get in on this Great Minds thing? Cause if not, I’d like to say … NUH-UNH!

Whew. Got that done!

[zoid]

@dimmy_derko

http://profkeithdevlin.org/

That makes me feel a whole lot better about not having a great grasp of the intricacies of the math in this thread.

Intricacies? Anthem (0) not withstanding. the concepts pointed out in this thread are something a clever 6th grader should be able to grasp and frankly if you don’t understand them by 8th grade you guidance counselor should be directing you to a career in interpretive dance, politics, or small scale pharmaceutical distribution.

[Dr.Colossus]

i think another fantastic issue **Anthem **really ought to be held accountable to:

if physics “invert” in space, and if space is “inconceivably different” than earth, why are we able to calculable launch and control probes, satellites, missions, etc? a crux (tenant) of this “theory” seems to be the insistence space is such a radically unknowable place that it allows a scientific void of plausibility for what **Anthem **believes. the various successes of space launches fly in the face of Anthem’s “void of understanding”

i know many people have asked in various ways (why don’t people notice this inversion on the space station? how were we able to repair the Hubble? what about Voyagers 1-2? etc)…but he just patently dismisses these question over and over.

Anthem–defend your credibility. be accountable

*address *the questions. *address *the math.

if your theory has any substance, stop arguing the buds and leaves and DEFEND THE FOREST. you are much more willing to drift into the minutia and debate teensy, tiny aspects (which, in all fairness to the Dopers nitpicking the points–Anthem IS getting them wrong as well, and foundationally, they are the threads that unravel the whole theory).

but Anthem–address the big issues as well.

if Space is an INVERSION of Reality–how are we successfully achieving all we are out there?
…why are you bi-polar about the math?

[Anthem_0]

@XRaeth

My understanding of your argument is that the - sign as the subtraction operator means always move to the left no matter what. This implies that in order to get to 2 we have to go all the way past 0, past -infinity wrap around to +infinity, and come all the way to 2.
This idea is fundamentally flawed.
Infinity is not a number, it is a concept. For any real number R, infinity > R.
This means that infinity can NEVER be reached.You use the concept of infinity as a natural inversion point, but the fact is that this is a terribly unfortunate word choice to describe your ideas as it already has implications in math that are completely incompatible with your theory.

Infinity is a relative concept. It isn’t a static concept. There are infinities which are numerically larger than other infinities. It has nothing to do with “reaching” infinity. It is simply that the ENTIRETY of the smaller infinity can be easily contained WITHIN the larger infinity.

To be honest, I’m not really sure where the point of contention is here. You’re disagreeing with what I’m saying but only giving some nebulous “infinity is a concept” as your reasoning for doing so…as though I’d suggested anything contrary to that. Then randomly declaring that math is incompatible with my theory. What are you disagreeing with exactly, and why?

If you wish to assert that you’re understanding is superior, you will have to provide some evidence of how it can be used to solve problems that the currently accepted understanding of math cannot. There are a million arbitrary ways to understand math; mine is but one of them, and I’m sure it has its own problems. It does not however lead anyone to believe notions such as 1 + 1 != 1 - (-1) which is ridiculous on its face.

You all need to stop doing this. I didn’t say that they aren’t mathematical equivalencies, I said they aren’t identical expressions of the same concept. They merely have the same starting point (1) and the same ending point (2). It’s like getting to a location by going left then right instead of going right then left - yes you’ll get to the same intersection, but the journey was NOT the same. You all are claiming this is irrelevant, which is truly amazing.

This is how math works, so it’s not an issue. But to DENY that math works this way (that you can arrive at the same ending point via a number of completely different paths) is absolutely ridiculous. I’m being painted as some delusional charlatan - but you all are actually arguing that mathematical notation is irrelevant so long as the answer is the same. There cannot be any reason you all are being this blatantly dishonest other than the fact that the crazy guy from the OP is saying it. Nothing I’m saying about math is controversial, and frankly none of it is even arguable.

And to whoever is writing in large letters complaining about the math thread: it was very much done and ready for submission…then people inexplicably began pretending that they didn’t even understand BASIC concepts about math, such as notation. I was willing to forego that bit of dishonest denial and post it anyway, but then now I’ve returned to see people actually disagreeing that Pi is mathematically undefinable…which is just too blatant an example of dishonesty for me to ingore entirely. If you all aren’t aware that pi is numerically undefinable, then what do you hope to gain with a math thread, other than new avenues to attack? It isn’t my opinion that numbers are incapable of representing circularity - the existence of pi should explain this much to you.

We’ll see what happens in the next few pages, but I’m not going to deal with deliberate dishonesty when it comes to math. Disagreeing with interpretation you’ve not taken the time to understand is one thing, but if you can’t admit that NUMBERS can only *approximate *the area of a circle, then the problem isn’t my explanation.

I’ll be back tomorrow.

[tomndebb]

@Anthem_0

. . . I’ve returned to see people actually disagreeing that Pi is mathematically undefinable…which is just too blatant an example of dishonesty for me to ingore entirely.

Quote the post where this was claimed.

I strongly suspect that you are putting your own “interpetation” on something different, just to let you have one more bit of nonsense about which to rant.

So, let us see what you are talking about in this claim.

[ /Moderating ]

[Anthem_0]

@Dr.Colossus

i think another fantastic issue **Anthem **really ought to be held accountable to:

if physics “invert” in space, and if space is “inconceivably different” than earth, why are we able to calculable launch and control probes, satellites, missions, etc? a crux (tenant) of this “theory” seems to be the insistence space is such a radically unknowable place that it allows a scientific void of plausibility for what **Anthem **believes. the various successes of space launches fly in the face of Anthem’s “void of understanding”

i know many people have asked in various ways (why don’t people notice this inversion on the space station? how were we able to repair the Hubble? what about Voyagers 1-2? etc)…but he just patently dismisses these question over and over.

What kind of question is this? Why would outer space being an inverion of inner space have anything to do with repairing a space station? Where is the connection? If you’re already in a spacesuit which is structurally capable of surviving the inversion, what would you be expecting to notice exactly? Do you even understand what you’re asking? If something SURVIVES the journey to outer space, then it can survive the inversion again.

You all seem to want to me to answer questions which don’t even make any sense. The Hubble telescope is massive and constructed of extremely durable material in an extremely durable fashion. It can exist in space just fine because it was designed to be able to do so. If you want to actually SEE inversion in space, send up an organic body without a spacesuit. It’s not like this is some new property of space I’m introducing.

if Space is an INVERSION of Reality–how are we successfully achieving all we are out there?
…why are you bi-polar about the math?

We build machines which are durable enough to survive the inversion and they absorb the light for us. I’m not really sure why you’re ignoring this vital bit of context or what you hope to gain by doing so.

[Alessan]

So if spaceships are designed to survive the inversion, that means the scientists who designed them know that inversion takes place. Otherwise, they wouldn’t work. But that means that your theory is not new, but rather something that scientists have known about for decades. So have they been keeping it secret from the general public?