DevilSolution

Mathematics relies on logic as its fundamental corner stone, every branch relies on basic logic to give it plausibility. HOWEVER logic needs no such thing from mathematics, therefor we can discern them. To say logic is a branch of mathematics is the same as defining the brain as part of the body, although this is true, its only through the brain that were able to even comprehend the rest of the body, or what a body is, or what a brain is. That being said there are aspects to mathematics (or physics atleast) that cant be described in any logical formalities i know of, such as time for example and the abstract notion of the locus and circles. All that being said Logic is a tool in a mathematicians toolbox as much as it is a philosophers. And dont forget conceptually speaking, you must walk before you run. This is what logic is to maths, it gives it the ability to run free and wild. And although you say logic is a subset of maths, its also primary to mostly all philosophical notions, which means it belongs to philosophy as much as maths, if not more.

I was reading a book on timeseries and all the obvious candidates were there but the fourier was briefly mentioned. Now i dont have a great deal of knowledge of calculus or geometry but i was just curious as to identifying the coefficients. I have what i think is the general formula but the guide i used starts using complex numbers as proof and seems to overcomplicate the equation. Apart from the coefficients do you think the transform would have use in a timeseries? I'm talking straight X and Y discrete data, from which there is no obvious or absolute "periods", although i would like to know if it could dissect that part for me. Regards,

The truth is that religion is boring. Your heaven isnt mine. Thats it......

Did peter pan come through the window? Your eyes are the windows. We all see different things. (but no one claims to have seen higher dimensions unless under the influence). Your in the truman show btw.

Everythings a concept darling. Sofa's dont actually exist there just extremely useful for resting on after a long days work,,,,,,,,,, Is your username an irony? Anything with purpose exists.....and humans didnt discover or invent maths.....it invented us.

I bet any takers that russia will join the EU before 2022. Evens, £100 max. ()(O.o)()

Whens it due? must be soon, has its waters dropped yet? ()(O.o)()

......urahh for the collective consciousness....this thread is a reflection of reality. There's the nit picking kids, the superiority complex "people", the occasional piece of banter and the people who have an "honest" and open opinion on the OP and hereafter. We are products of logic, the children of truth. It "SEEMS" there are some fundamental questions that are beyond our comprehension, we're confined to what is logically possible although that is infinitely finite. B...B..BbbbbBUMP......last one tnight i swear. ()(o.O)()

Just call it a concept and throw it in the philosophical sub forum. I can imagine the universe existing in many forms, one of those is a consciousness. Another is that its a void of infinite potential. You should expand on how you imagine this concept, for example what do neurons equate to? How about receptors and chemical and electrical signals? In measurement terms we would exist well within the sub atomic level of atoms within this brain.

I disagree, to abandon faith for critical thinking can lead to conclusions that become self fullfilling prophecies. For examppe i have faith in human kind and have faith that as a species we have the capabillity to overcome any situation. However under the current political climate most people i speak to use "critical thinking" to come to the conclusion human kind is set to destroy itself. Logically i cant argue otherwise, we are hard wired with particular triats that lead to this conclusion, especially given the current political climate (exponential breading, nuclear war, conflicting religious ideology, monetary collapse etc). However i still have faith in humanity and its abillity to evolve, my faith may be unfounded but without that (and others who agree) we will inevitably fullfill the self fullfilling prophecy of the masses "critical thinking" and their eventual conclusion. On a completely non religious base faith should not be abandonded because the odds are stacked against you.

Firstly keeping society safe on the whole and criminalizing people who choose to take a substance fully aware of there effects is contradictory. As i previously stated substances like alcohol can have negative effects on society but are perfectly legal whereas substances like LSD are classified as highly dangerous to society? Its completely irrational. One substance makes the user more likely to act aggressive or lower inhibitions whereas the other pretty much makes you sofa bound whilst also allowing one to explore their own mind and self being. Its nonsense. Secondly as far as discussing drugs go, ive read 2 books by alex shulgin who states that science loves to explore the "brain" by using radioactive ligands to map chemical responses and hence enhance the knowledge of receptor sites, specific agonists, antagonists, inhibitors etc. Yet science seems affraid or unwilling to explore the "mind", that is the effects of substances relative to ones perceptions. The door is completely closed if you wanted to use specific substances to explore the effects of ones perception or even further to explore ones own mind. Science seems to want to map out neurological responses whereas the other aspect is to explore the meaning behind consciousness, self awareness and being. I dont think science is capable of acheiving such things without willingness and its therefor upto the person to explore their own consciousness. Science has the capabillity to aĺlow for these types of experiments but governments wont allow it. Quite strange reaĺly. Just as a side note; really things like sweets / candy do more harm than good to society on the whole yet no one bats an eye lid, yet psychoactive substances with the potential to help society is completely contraband? Something doesnt add up in this equation.

Any form of propositional, sequential or combinitorial logic thats defined by the operators "and", "or" and "not". These allow for things like addition and subtraction and as most operators are derived from these any operator could be defined in logical terms.

I was just browsing through old topics i created but for some reason lots have vanished. I searched for a specific name i remebered and it still exists so does my topic history have a time limit?

Im aware of how postulates work, in reference to defining operators instead of postulating them, do they all come from logic as i proposed? such that addition is simply a&&b etc Also if we dont somehow postulate that a value exists, where else would we get values from? Its a fundamental axiom that a number must first exist.

Yes ive recently come to understand the nature of AC alot more. Fundamentally i was confused with how an electon escapes the coil when it moves back and forth to a net movement of 0. However understanding that electrons actually bounce into each other causing a chain reaction (instead of moving down the line as i imagined, although there is some movement) clarified my understanding. You must have a closed ciruit for electricity to flow and because the electrons bounce into each other instead of move, they simaltaniously move around the circuit, in both directions. I understand that now. Water is a bad analogy because you see water as moving which isnt auch the case with AC current and also having the 2 caps confused me.

I created a similar topic regarding math and logic but my initial OP was totally incorrect and secondly this delves a little deeper into other factors of math. The simplest way to express maths is to postulate the existence of a single value. Once we have a value we then postulate 2 basic operations that this value can use, addition and subtraction (multiplication being a function of addition and division being the abstract inverse of multiplication, powers being extension of multiplication and root being extension of division (specific forms of that operator)). From here we have an infinite set of natural numbers using just addition and once the other operators are used we have an infinite set of real numbers. Having summed maths in this form it may be best to explain axioms(as we have used atleast 3) and proofs. Okay so firsly we have axioms / postulates which are simply propositions of truth. We then try to apply some form of proof onto the axiom which gives it its logical conclusion (true or false). Now when trying give a proof we use a basic set of principles with which it must successfully navigate to be determained as true. The primary forms of proof to my knowledge are: The counter example (finding an error in the axiom) The direct method (minimize the proof to some expression thats always true) The indirect method (reduction to the absurd, inverse the postulate) The method of mathematical induction (the domino effect, if the first expression of a sequence is true, then it follows the rest are) At this point its important to declare the use of logic. The only real value an axiom holds is its logical outcome from the proof. Not only that, pure logic is used as the method of proof. (Which is my argument for math being a product of logic). Now i would like to analyse a few aspects of the process weve used so far then offer some questions regarding the fundamental nature of maths. first of all in my example i postulated that the value 1 exist. The problem with the proof is that logically we must accept its existence. Secondly i would like to know whether its possible to postulate operators in the manner i did? Axiomatically creating the operators using logic is possible as is proven with the constructs of "and", "or" and "not" which are equivalent to all the operators when combined in a particular form (again further adding to the concept that all math is formed from logic). So my initial question is: How are numbers and operators related? If the operators already exist within the realms of logic, does the addition of the axiom 1 therefor create mathematics? I would also like to know about the logic we personally apply to mathematics, such as BODMAS.By default there is no logical reason to apply precedence to operators other than for our own abstract use of it. What i mean is are we defining the laws of maths ourselves? Hence making our form of maths only a branch of logic. Also im interested in understanding the abstract nature of maths vs physics. For example in the mathematical realm we use the abstact concept of a circle, its used as a fundamental aspect of maths, not only within the area of geometry but it also extends into other branches of maths such as statistics and probability. However in the physical world a circle doesnt exist yet we apply the various uses of pi to the physical world, why does a purely abstract mathematic concept have such importance in the real world? and how does one cross the barrier of abstract maths into the physical world? One final question, in regards to the "proofs" we use, is it possible that theres errors in these processes? Could there be an ultimate logical expression that alone stands as proof. In other words instead of having multiple methods as proof could there be a single expression that proves the axiom? One final note, it seems that maths is directly related to the physical world, we purposely use it for its functionality within the physical world. However it seems we have various aspects of the mathematic realm which has no bearing on physical reality (for example the use of dimensions in maths, which geometrically pile up, in comparison to our 3 dimensional world of x, y and z. Here the maths doesnt relate to reality). So is maths an extension of physics? Or is it the physical world that dictates the use or usefulness of math? Regards and sorry for such the long post.

The necessity for humans to find purpose in a higher being comes from the transitional stage of ignorance to self awareness. Once your self conscious the primary neurological circuits also make a transit. The baby crying for milk turn into the man praying for peace. In the first instance we always got what we needed, in the second were at a loss. Amen.

Its strange how we use multiple dimensions in maths yet were bound to 3 dimensional reality + time. Does this mean the definitions are different? And how do you comprenhend higher mathematic dimentions (dismissing time). Like on paper it can be formulated but can it be comprehended in the mind? Sorry for the tangent.

I wont pretent to fully understand the hpothesis itself because of lack of knowledge of complex numbers (though i have basic understanding of imaginary numbers i dont understand the "critical line" or why infinite 0's sit on it). However i grasp the concept of the zeta function and how generally exponents create a convergence. I specifically want to know how using the pattern 1-(1/2^s) + 1-(1/3^s) + 1-(1/5^s) + 1-(1/7^s) etc relates to the zeta function. The example i have doesnt clarify how the zeta function and this prime pattern relate exactly so any information would be gladly accepted. (Also any examples of complex numbers that sit on this critical line). Regards.

No you cant but its a persons choice none the less. You can quite safely say that ethically its up to that person to decide (if that person is fully conscientious of the effects). In comparison how can you quantify the legality of fire arms in respect to "harming others, familly, community and society on the whole". How is it ones liberty to bear fire arms which only have the capacity to cause harm is accepted but the option to open ones mind via the synthetic route is 15 year jail sentence? Theres lots of things in this world that can cause harm to society but ive personally found that taking particular substances can enhance society or the person. For example psilocybin generally has a positive effect on the user and can open ones mind to experiences that can give closure to an event or give a different view on the world. Ovcourse certain substances have the characteristics of being abused instead of used. Anyone with half a brain should know the purpose of a substance and when one is "using or abusing". Its a fundamental human right to do to ones body as they wish, to be told otherwise is patronizing aswell as being quite a scary concept. Such control eventually leads to the 1984 ideology as i believe we are slowly walking into. Ontop of all that you cut out the darker side of it, the stigma and the culture surrounding it. Which in the case of portugal and holland shows evidence that decriminalization works and the "war on drugs" is a great over expenditure of a nations resources.

No one cares. Theres no forethinking. Were a species on the brink. People are lazy and think about the here and now. We have animal insticts hardwired into our brains and theres not enough good people to balance the ignorance of the majority. Have you not thought were the foreign body on this object?

Its my personal belief that a human have the right to do with their own boddies as they wish. Criminalising people who choose to take a particular substances is an injustice on freedom and only creates a negative stigma towards particular chemicals. Ovcourse theres the social aspect to take into account but countries like holland and portugal have decriminalised all drugs have seen reductions in drug abuse. Im only writting this because my government has banned access to any psychoactive chemicals which i strongly disagree with. Ethically speaking aslong as you cause no harm to others then there should be no problem. Infact its a slap in the face when you consider how much damage alcahol and cigs do. At what point do you turn around and say "Who the fuck are you to teĺl me what i can and cant do with my own body". They are the corruption in this world, they make laws to suit their own needs.

Your subconscious mind deals with 90% of your brain. Memories are collections of neurons that are like muscles. They have connections called axions with thousands of links to other neurons. Calcium ions are used as the primary nerve signal and then secondary is the chemical response. Good memories will will probably release diny doses of 5-hydroxy tryptamine making you feel good. Memories last forever unless like those specific neurons go free radical or such but the less you recall a memory the fainter it becomes, almost like a dormant entity waiting for a trigger. Anyway, its the imagination thats most interesting, creativity is an aspect of neurology that seems almost impossible to understand. As for cybernetics i think pandora should steer clear. With the amount of open and free data available you should hardly need a memory upgrade, if you have an honest interest in something youll learn and retain it anyway.

Theres obviously 2 ways of looking at it. 1) Its the area of physics were yet to fully understand, even partially. It has and will offer great breakthroughs for mankind and is the only real direction physics can move. It already has a large list of usefull progressions that have aided mankind massively. A good example is the jahn teller metal just created within the last few months. Its a superconductor with a very low critical temprature, its also an insulator, metal and magnet simaltaniously. Offers great potential for various purposes. 2) It has turned into a form of pseudo science whereby new theories are being written up but have no physical evidence other than abstract theoretical math. Theres lots of conflicting theories and theres a herd mentalility to which theory is agreed upon. Finally it could be said very intelligent people are wasting huge amounts of time on theories that are almost impossible to prove and have no advantage to human progress. Its important to note that quantum refers to anything sub atomic, such as electrons, protons and neutrons. At this basic level it has given us a much greater understanding of chemistry, electromagnetism and physics in general. Theres a major flaw in QM in that it doesnt work with the classical physics which is used 80% of the time in engineering and such. My personal opinion is that QM is by no means a waste of time, however the amount of time and money thats invested into it should be for more practical purposes rather than creating wild and exotic theories because theyre more fun. The primary goal should be to unify physics so that its no longer conflicting. One final note id like to add is the limitations of QM, i firmly believe that we are physically constrained by the apparatus. There is limit to the time variable and size variable we can explore. For example if we define time as being relative and the speed of light the fastest thing we can observe then its fair to say anything moving faster than the speed of light simply cant be captured.