What on Earth gives you the belief that quantum mechanics says anything like “You can cause things to become true (or at least more probable) if you get enough people to believe in them hard enough”?
As a general principle, when I hear the word “quantum” in a philosophical discussion, I reach for my Browning.
Whatever would Elizabeth Barrett Browning have to say about quantum philosphy?
I suppose she’d be a bit put off as I accidentally reached for her…
(That’s really the first Browning that comes to your mind? I’d never heard of her)
Yeah, for some reason I didn’t even think of poor old Bobbie.
As long as you’re providing the oosh for both the whoosh and the douche, please explain to me how I’m misunderstanding the difference quotient. Is it not applicable in a situation where one has changing values? Can it not be used to determine instantaneous values? Is it a concept that is only referable for math majors?
How did I show that?
There is nothing in what I’m saying that implies that anyone is too limited to get it. Your limitations are your own.
I don’t think anyone can even understand you’re saying about the difference quotient; it all sounds like so much gibberish.
If one accepts the theory of evolution through the process of natural selection as a given, then I would argue that it is reasonable to assume that perception in the individual is likely in most cases roughly analogous to some aspects of “reality”, since perception has evolved on account of it’s fitness to effect survival and procreation inside that “reality”.
Of course, there could also be a malevolent demon feeding your mind with hallucinations where you float around in some metaphysical soup, in which case you might as well “kill your neighbours dog” or something. How would you know the real rules of the game anyway?
Are you telling me that one cannot use a function to determine instantaneous values?
I have no godly idea what it even means to “use a function to determine instantaneous values”. So, no, I’m not trying to tell you you can’t do whatever. I’m just telling you that you haven’t communicated well enough what you are trying to say, that you perhaps need to put some more effort into expressing it clearly.
In my dialect, those are not homophones and in this forum, that looks like an insult. I know this is frustrating, but calm down and just work your way through it without getting personal.
[ /Modding ]
Ok, I’m sorry. I’ve done some looking around and I think I see what you’re saying about misusing the idea of repetition in the difference quotient.
I’ll try to understand it better before I mention it again and I’m sorry if I insulted anyone.
The idea of being patted on the back had to do with the OP signing off by implying that his leaving would find us all patting one another on the back. I guess it is not in the least bit ironic that we disagree on that point.
What the heck ever did happen to Homer, anyway?
What is an instantaneous value, pray tell? It’s some value of a function we have at the moment? If that’s the case, then all values are instantaneous since we get to them by evaluating some function at some input.
Or did you mean instantaneous rate?
The so-called difference quotient can sure do that, but that’s hardly relevant. Your point was, I gather, that the difference quotient has to be done several times to get closer to the limit (although you haven’t used the word or the concept of limit). I took issue with that because, barring some very erudite explanation, it’s wrong.
I have. I call it ‘My First E’! 
I think that you are overshooting your intended point here, or maybe I’m wrong. Your ocular blind spot does not physically exist, unless you are referring to an absence of something as being proof that it exists. It is an abstract concept, not a part of your eye. The absence of cones and rods in that section of your eyes are your blind spots. When you die, this spot will get exponentially larger. What are you referring to as “Universe of Perception”? The only reasonable way I can translate that is “brain”. If that were true, your previous statement would read something like this “…proof positive that brains are inconsistent, for we can actually do simple experiments (illusions?) to show objects popping in and out of existence (or our awareness of their existence)…” That is much easier for me to understand and is very true. I have been privy to some fantastic visual and auditory hallucinations in my lifetime and I am fascinated by the vast array of illusions which can deceive our perception.
I can honestly tell you I have a very distinct memory of my nose being attached to my face yesterday while sitting on the couch. This could be because my eyes have a tendency to converge when they relax as opposed to diverging as most peoples do.
Memories might seem to be in the third person because of our mind recreating everything about a certain situation. In the absence of fluid perception, your mind fills in the gaps, sometimes with ambiguous information. Can you describe yourself to someone without looking in a mirror. Of course you can, you’ve seen yourself millions of times. Your eyes have obtained a pseudo 3rd person view of you so if your brain chooses to present this mental image, so be it.
Has anyone read Castaneda’s ‘Teachings of Don Juan’? I just ordered the book because I read a few passages from ‘Journey to Ixtlan’, which I will read after ‘Teachings’ in where Castaneda recounts Juan’s core principle of sorcery as being able to “stop” your reality. To do so, one must mentally or metaphysically reverse their current progressive state of perception or state of mind/being. Would this be the same as altering your existence? If you look at reality in abstract, as a conceived point of reference, a tool even, then certainly it is inconsistent.
I’m not familiar with the Participatory Anthropic Model but I would take a pot shot and say everything in the universe, myself included, is changing symbiotically and also quite linearly; a beautiful decay!
As for your original question. I can’t recall a specific turning point but it had to be when I was old enough to communicate effectively and realize that my opinions aren’t always consistent with those of others and are, more often than not, bastardizations of whatever truth there is to be discovered. Thus gave rise to my sparkling personality, but that’s another chapter, in another book.
To evaluate the limit, it must first exist, and like you said, limits were never mentioned. The only reason to apply L’Hopital’s rule repeatedly would be to convert forms and evaluate the limit.
So what does this have to do woth our perception of reality? Show me a mathematical equation describing how I see the world and I’ll personally do everything in my power to make sure you are nominated for a nobel!
The limit has to exist to evaluate, sure. But the point where the limit approaches doesn’t. That would be the value of the function, which is instantaneous. We get it at the precise moment we evaluate the function at x. That’s different than the limit, which is the value the function approaches as we approach x. The two are different.
What this has to do with the question at hand? I’m still waiting for his response as to why it would be necessary. It’s his position, not mine, which is why I asking him, SixwordS to explain it.
L’Hospital’s Rule wouldn’t apply in the situation he gave. I mentioned it only assuming that we both were using only f(x)-f(x) and then choosing 0 for the value of h. Neither was suggested in his example. What he suggested is that to use the difference quotient we must have two different values for the numerator, which isn’t true. Still, I await for his response to more fully flesh out what he meant.
As it stands now, his answer was along the lines of are we saying that we can’t get an instantaneous value out of a function. The issue in question, though, isn’t about some instantaneous value, it’s about an instantaneous rate of change, which is precisely what the difference quotient is used to get.
L’Hospital’s rule wouldn’t say anything interesting about [f(x) - f(x)/0], incidentally. As a reminder, L’Hospital’s rule is just a technique for evaluating the limit of a ratio N(x)/D(x) between two functions at a point where both functions individually have limiting values of 0; even without L’Hospital’s rule, we can tell what’s going to happen in this case: the two functions would be N(x) = f(x) - f(x) = constantly 0 and some other function D(x) [which I assume you do not intend to take to be constantly 0, but simply something which has a limit of 0 at the point we care about]. Thus, N(x)/D(x) = constantly 0/D(x) = 0 wherever D(x) is non-zero, and undefined otherwise. Thus, the limit of the ratio at a point L will be undefined if L is an accumulation point of the zeros of D(x), and 0 otherwise.
(I was going to apologize for the continuing the silly hijack, but this is one of those threads where worrying about such things is perhaps not worth bothering with, there being precious little substance in the nominal main topic to avoid straying from)
Well, the points you raise are quite good. But it isn’t my claim! It’s SixwordS’s claim. I was merely showing that it doesn’t make sense, to me at least, and that if he wants to argue the point, he’ll have to do better.
And my description held to be accurate enough for the purpose of this conversation. It wasn’t meant to be a scholarly treatise on either the difference quotient, or even L’Hospital’s Rule. Or even math in general. But he mentioned that in his definition, it’s like the difference quotient because it’s necessarily an iterative process.
That confused me, so I started asking questions. I’ve yet to see anything more from him than the assertion that it’s true.
The issue with my having chosen f(x)-f(x) had to do with ease of typing more than anything else. I just didn’t want to bother with the extra keystrokes to type in a rule about f(x+h)-f(x) provided that our h → x and then setting up various conditions. I see now that that isn’t wholly possible because someone wanted to nitpick a point that wasn’t even mine to begin with. It’s his logic, I’m doing the best I can to figure out what he means.
Of course, he could alleviate all of this by simply explaining either, a.) what he meant, b.) how what I think what he means isn’t what he means, or c.) that there’s some unusual condition in his logical which makes it locally true which I have overlooked.
Or, since the thread is where it is now, we can make it a math thread and fight about the finer points of that!
Sure, I’m not fighting with you; just talking. I agree with you that it’s impossible to know what SiXSwordS meant by bringing up calculus in the first place. But I think they agree now too.