[MD] the illusion of zero

[Ron Kulp]

Case,
Here's my point, enter 1 into your calculator then divide by two until
you reach zero.
If 1 is absolute then zero can be achieved. You are assuming one has a
beginning and an end
 1.0 Rests on zero. 0.9 never reaches 1.0, 1.0 never reaches 1.1
But by rounding. Fucked up huh? Math goes Kaplooey when used to measure
reality.
You must assume an absolute value based on an average for it to function
or you just chase
Your tail down the rabbit hole at getting to 1 from zero.
Time to take a long drawl on the skull bong..
-Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ron Kulp
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:44 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] the illusion of zero

 
[Case]
But 1 is absolute. It signifies a single specific point on the number
line.
It is exact. Rounding error fizzes all around it but it is complete and
unambiguous. Just like every other point on the line well except for the
square root of 2 and its ilk. 1 to the minus gazillion is no less
absolute but a gazillion times more obscure.


[Ron]
is
.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999infinity
An absolute?
1 works if zero is taken to mean something, an absolute. then every
whole is an assumed absolute But in reality it is'nt. math is
meaningless until an absolute is assumed.you have to have a cut-off To
precipitate a round then you may reach an absolute 1. but does reality
have a cut-off point To cause a rounding? Averaging is the closest we
can come to any kind of precision.
1 apple plus 1 apple may equal two apples absolutly but when you measure
the buggers All of it goes to shit. one is redder one is bigger ect. You
have kids, you know You can't give both your kids an apple without them
bitching about one has the better.
Even if the objects are seemingly identical, they know. 1 does not equal
1, 1 I say is an assumed value For a whole in order for math to work.
Thanks for helping work this out, I invite argument on this.


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Case
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:10 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] the illusion of zero

[Case]
Not being a Trinitarian I am not sure how much help I can be. In fact it
seems to me you are really pushing it since this looks a lot more like:
1+1+1=5.

[Ron]
More like 1+1+1=1,(.45+.45+.45=1.35) my emphisis lies in the averaging.
the value for absolute.
That pirsig is right, the trinity is right, the tao te ching is right.
Value my friend, right Here in river city. 

[Case]
That's a capital V and that rhymes with P and that stand for Pool.

[Ron]
Beginning and end, zero, and
any absolute is a contruct for understanding An illusionary tool.
1+1 is allways going on . 1+1 can equal
3. 1+1 can equal 2. 1+1 can equal 1. 
Three outcomes depending on the value of 1 .
"one" is not absolute. it is the value of one that can never be known

[Case]
But 1 is absolute. It signifies a single specific point on the number
line.
It is exact. Rounding error fizzes all around it but it is complete and
unambiguous. Just like every other point on the line well except for the
square root of 2 and its ilk. 1 to the minus gazillion is no less
absolute but a gazillion times more obscure.

[Ron]
The dynamic value. That's what is so interesting about fractile geometry
It randomly flipflops the rounding error creating interesting
nature-like Mathmatical constructs when compounded geometricly, thus it
seems infinately Large and infinately small with great detail limited
only by the decimal Place allowed for rounding.

[Case]
Exactly, rounding error and the number iterations you select for each
point.

[Ron]
The same thing goes for language you assume an absolute definition So
that communication is understandable but in reality terms mean different
Things to different people. The "value" of the term must be established
Before communication can be more accurate especially when involved In
abstract thought when the variation in the value of a term can Compound
instantly.

[Case]
Word meanings seem more like fuzzy sets than fractals to me but what the
heck I am in the mood to almost agree with everyone today.


 

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/