cladking

How do you know the bird isn't simply creatin a one to one correspondance between its responses and the number of objects. If a horse kicks three times in response to three fingers it might simply be kicking once for each finger rather than counting fingers and kicks. We'll need another thread for the extensive evidence an animal human language once existed.

Counting isn't natural logic/ natural math. It is a human construct founded on modern language but employing terms that mirror natural logic. Numbers are part of language moreso than math. They are constructs. just as all operators in our math are constructs. Animals can't understand human math or counting. Counting is simple enough an individual monkey or other "intelligent" animal might be able to "get it" but then the individual couldn't describe how our system differs from its. Even if it had the words we wouldn't understand them. I doubt any coulds have the words because animal language is geared toward more immediate needs and they lack the ability to build on past learning generationally so they lack the complex knowledge to frame such thoughts. At the risk of going off-topic, early humans were animals. They used a complex language for 40,000 years but this was a natural language with natural logic. When complex language arose the language became increasingly complex to contain all the new learning which accumulated generationally. The language became too complex and failed leaving us modern language where words are constructs with many meanings which become apparent through context. I don't believe these early "coiunters" counted at all but rather they used animal math. ie- the first egg plus the second egg is the sum total of the eggs. The second egg is half the first and second egg. In a set of the first and second eggs, two eggs exist. I don't think this is even "math" in our terms but rather a way of seeing the world by use of natural logic. There is a one to one correspondance between the set of eggs and the set of myself and my mate. Hence breakfast is served. The ability to manipulate this logic became so complex that we still haven't figured it out. Some operations are rather clumsy using this "math", of course. We count. It makes perfect sense to us. When we apply the rules of math and nature correctly we are often capable of great things. ...but this doiesn't mean we understand the laws of reality or gravvity better than a goat.

I'm not sure to exactly what degree I distinguish between measurement and observation either. However observation is virtually theory free. When you are observing you're supposed to be experiencing a thing or event outside of known explanations and pre-conceptions. Of course this is merely an ideal and always impossible. Measurement on the other hand is just converting a property of an object into terms that are standardized for communication or calculation. Not only can a 1 foot square shape be defined in many ways but it can also be measured in many ways. All such measurements and calculations provide the same results within the scope of the equipment and the margin of error. It's true most individuals will see this all in theory and construct but it really isn't. Just as one giraffe plus one giraffe makes three giraffes it's very straight forward. Each individual gets equivalent results whether the product is a giraffe or a square foot. Perhaps it could be said that measurement is a thing done by people observation is a thing done by science. I fully understand that most people don't see it this way but I believe this is due to the operating system of the mind obscuring the means by which it operates. Just as we don't observe reality directly we don't observe the way the mind works directly because it is obscured by language in which we think as proven by the oft held belief that we think and hence know that we exist. The irony is that animals understand theory better than most people. This is simply because the natural world is wired directly into their brains. No, it's not "instinct" it's the way their brains work, it's the operating system of their brains. This operating system is based on "mathematics", or more precisely, the same logic that underlies math. Goats walk on the sides of mountains because the alternative is death. Birds communicate while scanning the ground and sky for predators. Those which fail any part of this behavior will not lend their genes to future generations. They "all" do this while each doing it in subtlely different ways as a matter of "personality". Animals are excellent observers but lack the extensive knowledge of humans to make sense of most of their observations. Humans are generally extremely poor observers because we see what we expect prefentially to the reality. Even when modern humans make good observation it will still be interpreted within the construct of models. Most scientists might do a little better observing anomalies than expected things because these stand out as needing further observation. Most peoples' models are so poor they couldn't tell rope from a snake unless it bit them.

You're assuming their construct is identical to the human construct. It's far more likely animals 1st egg, 2nd egg, 3rd egg, etc. To the animal there is no construct. Just eggs. Humans imagine that 1, 2, and three are entities but they are not.

As he said; measurement is distance. Of course we can feel a child's forehead to guage whether he's sick or not and we don't need an anemometer to tell us why our hat fell off. Measurement is mostly quantification of constructs and mostly related to distance. We compare something we "know" to fit a construct to a physical object of phenomenon to determine how they relate to each other. Perhaps I am missing the point. Measurement seems highly straight forward to me and simply a part of observation.

I'm obviously not referring to the "logic" we study in school. Frankly, I see this subject as interesting but it is far more about semantics and definitions than the logic of nature. Logic is easily twisted and tortured by words and until we create concrete definitions for words this will always be the case. Words with concrete definitions are still constructs as we use language but there's no wiggle room for twisting meaning. "Logic" as I'm using the term and saying nature is inherently logical is embedded deeply in reality itself and is brutal. If you need two oars to propel a boat and you bring two types of ores you might find yourself up the creek without a paddle. Logic is every single mammal having one male and one female parent. This is the logic where one plus one equals three yet we each have two parents. We have four grandparents. This logic is wired right into the human brain and the brains of all animals. This logic is simply quantified in mathematics. One plus one is said to equal two because in reality when one thing is considered in conjunction with a similar thing there is typically about twice as much. Thus one times two is equivalent to one plus one. Of course in the real world one plus one can equal anything from a very large number to minus a very large number. The logic always holds because a man and woman are inherently different so this difference is what creates the third. This same thing applies to apples, grains of sand, and miles. Each is inherently different and each follows the logic of nature. We invent concepts and words to describe it and math to quantify it but it all still always obeys the logic of nature preferentially to the logic of man. Every thing and all of their parts bend to the will of nature and we merely strive to understand her.

The value of currency in modern economies is irrelevant to economic considerations. It is arbitrarily chosen by central banks. There is some meaning to the value of currency times the total quantity of currency and, no doubt, this total is far higher in South Korea. But new conflations are introduced because things like total debt and purchasing power become germaine.

Measurement isn't any more "real' than area. "Distance" is real and "distance" is the concept we're trying to quantify. Take a square that is twelve inches on a side. We say that the lenght can be multiplied by the width or the width by the lenght to determine that it's 144 in ^ 2. But this square is also 1 ft by 1 ft so it's eqally true that it's 1 ft ^ 2. These numbers both fit and are equal because this is how reality is. I often redefine things to equal one so the math can be done in my mind more easily. I say distance is real but we need to remember even this is a perception and means of understanding what we see. It's is always either this "distance" or time which prevents two objects from occupying the same space.

There are not really any answers to any questions. The concept that "I think therefore I am" is simply ludicrous. One doesn't think outside of language so a more realistic perspective is "I am therefore I think". And this is the heart of every question, all communication, and all knowledge; perspective. I simply prefer a perspective from which an axiomatic reality is most easily visible. Yes, I invented "reality" as being axiomatic and assuming it is exactly what people perceive and as defined by scientific results as seemn through the definitions, processes, and rules of the science that produced those results. My perspective yields no more knowledge than any other but some of the connections between various aspects of reality are more easily seen. Of course, some are harder to see as well. Bouncing around the different perspectives is what I call generalism and was very similar to what I believe ancient science was. Rather than experimental results it used observation and the natural logic of a sort of mathematically based language. Most of understanding reality is independent of perspective and this applies especially to scientific knowledge but I believe there are some deviations between theory and reality caused by perspective. While specialization and the ability to use a great deal of knowledge at narrow focus is of immense value to individuals and society there is a huge need for people trained to see other perspectives. The current trends are all unsustainable and apparently getting worse. Debt in a broad spectrum of meaning is increasing geometrically while ever more resources are being wasted to combat it. Meanwhile ever more highly leveraged bets on the future are a weight on any eventuality. Eventually one individual will have all the money and it will have no value at all. Math works because it is logical and logic is an aspect of nature. It just does it. Area is equal to lenght times width or width times lenght because it is. This isn't apparent from the perspective of the mind using modern language as its operating system. If you think that you exist because you are conscious then you can't see that it is language in which you think. If you think 1 + 1 = 2 because this is the right answer or this usually seems to agree with reality then you can't see that these are constructs and a shorthand way of thinking rather than reality itself. It is a reality where 1 + 1 doesn't really = 2. It's merely the logic of nature which we never did see directly but are now removed another step away by language.

Certainly all individuals have aspects of both male and female but it's all "supposed" to add up to men being masculine and women being feminine. There's nothing wrong with a man admiring or being attracted to any given masculine trait in a woman (and vice versa) but now days it can be hard to tell a man from a woman based solely on behavior, appearances, or perspectives. You identify what could be a major factor; the concordance of plastic and microwaves. If you eat much food out of plastic containers you might easily impact testosterone levels and this goes many time over if the food is heated in the plastic. Some manufacturers are even lining canned goods in plastic. Hollywood now presents men as trouble making troglodytes and women as the answer to all society's ills just as they've swapped underrepresention and bad portrayals of minorities and women for overrepresentation and bad portrayals of majority people and this goes many times over for men. It's only natural young men and boys will shy away from masculinity and roles normally reserved for men. Our schools fail boys very much preferentially to girls. In the LA school system only some 20% of boys ever even graduate high school while the figure for girls is usually over 80%. We spend more on these schools than most schools because it's not easy to keep children from learning. Children naturally want to learn but they teach them to hate it and still have time to declare war on Arizona. A lot of the problem is the quisling media and a mindset that says traditional values and perspectives must be replaced by a feel good smilie faced status quo. Not hurting peoples' feelings has been elevated to the only good and being a man has been relegated to unthinking, unfeeling, unintelligent, brutes of past ages. Individual rights no longer exist and only civil rights now apply and civil rights are based chiefly on being the member of a minority. It's not only unpopular to assert one's rights but dangerous in the modern age. Of course much of thgis is caused by coddling criminals and failing to even remove them from sociuety. With large numbers running loose it really is more dangerous so laws restricting everyone's rights are enacted. Now days thousands of laws and regulations with the effect of law are made almost daily. Old laws are almost never removed from the books and stay in full effect but are simply not enforced. We've enterred a brave new world where men are hardly even welcome.

Of course there's no evidence. From the current perspective, the perspective generated by the brain's operating system call language, only our consciousness is set in stone and even it can't be clearly defined, measured, or understood (except when considering itself). It's little better from the perspective where reality is taken as a given however things fit together differently and some things are more easily seen. People want answers to the big questions but the reality is we can't have these answers at the current time so all we can do is better understand the questions. To each his own?

Well, if love means never having to say your sorry then naturally modern times is hard on men. We not only are expected to apologize endlessly but our leaders even take it upon themselves to apologize for us. On a little more serious note the food supply now is so adulterated that it might have any number of effects. Overweight, sluggish, and drugged people will probably all have lower levels. It's really tough to say. This is the first generation of men who are expected to be "sensitive" so who knows? There are likely other factors as well. I apologize if you're too young to catch the references.

Indeed. The important thing in calculation is to maintain the same frame of reference. The important thing for Wile E Coyote is to not know there's no longer a cliff under him since there's no acceleration until he does. Fortunately for Acme it requires only a frame or two for even fatal injuries to completely heal.

First thing in the whole thread I disagree with!!! Don't get me wrong, certainly scientific "fact" is a socially derived thing just as all "fact" has a social component. However "fact" certainly does exist independently of language and experimental science that springs fdrom it. We can never be actuall;y certain of any fact and there's a tendency for individual to more likely be wrong the more certain they are. Sometimes even expert opinion is more likely to be wrong than common sense or the flip of a coin. I call "facts" to be things I'm 99.9% confident. I'm typing on a computer that employs digital software to communicate with other entities who are all humans. This is a "fact". I'm 99.9% confident that it's true. The same applies to the thermometer. I'm 99.9% confident that warmer bodies will register higher temperatures and their warmth is directly proportional to the reading. The scale and numbers are irrelevancies unless I need to communicate temperature (average heat) to another individual. Again, I'm 99.9% confident this is all true. Of course this isn't the way most people think. Very interesting thread thus far. 3 x 4 = 12 isn't a measurement but a quantification of reality itself. We simply lose sight of the meanings of the terms and how we process concepts. But none of these terms "3", "4", "x", or "12" are real. Indeed, even "=" doesn't exist in the same sense as three piles of four apples makes twelve apples to the degree that each term is properly applied; that is applied in a way that is consistent with the meaning of each term and the word "apple(s)". Certainly there is a great deal of harmony and balance to twelve being equivalent to three piles of four. What we have here isn't a failure of science, math, or application but rather a failure to communicate. Unless you see that the words are mere constructs and everything is dependent not only on metaphysics and the language we use to establish definitions and understand reality then you will misapprehend the meanings of terms and the nature of the reality no one can directly perceive. We make sense of sensory input by arranging our brain to conform to it but we still use language as the operating system. Modern language is not the only possible operating system for humans.

I've been trying very hard to show this evidence for a long time now but it requires a completely different way of thinking apparently. It requires a whole new perspective at the very least. From the prerspective of the way we think we see what we know and we know that four is more than two. If I ask whether you want two big piles of something you desire or four tiny piles you'll take the two big ones and then claim the question was some sort of trick instead of a representation of the reality that no two of anything actually exists so that numbers are a construct. What makes the person choose the two big piles is simple logic; he can see that two is greater than four in this instance. By the same token there are many ways to skin a cat and any system that works will be repeatable. If you apply logic to a system and define the terms such as math it will simply be repeatable. If we strip nature down to something that works in the lab then this too will be repeatable. Every time we slide a weight down an inclined plane it will never accelerate at 32' per sec ^ 2. It will always be dependent on the specific angle and friction. But this doesn't mean we've invented gravity but merely that we've identified a force that always acts the same and that can be quantified. Yes, everything is in perfect balance and this was called "maat" in ancient science. It is the balance of logic and nature which gives rise to it. We didn't invent it but merely quantified it. We typically don't see this balance and we don't see the reality directly but rather we see the models that derive from experiment and definition. We see the world as an extension of our knowledge, we see the world in terms of our knowledge never realizing the nature of knowledge is distinct from reality because of definitions and perspectives. Our understanding is derived from the effect of reality on experiment.

Math isn't "real" nor are numbers or the way math is applied. But logic is real and any system founded on a logical framework will yield consistent answers. While brains operate on a logical system modern language does not. Instead we operate on constructs with which we create paradigms and models. Since math is at the heart of many of these models they will always appear to be true to the observer. The closer you look at natural forces stripped to their basics as in the lab then observation will almost always match models perfectly. When they don't a new model is invented based on new experiment.

I'm afraid the survey of the pyramid base didn't pan out for falsifying my theory. Unfortunately all the known points were too close to the centers of the sides to show much difference in elevation. I suspect they didn't measure the elevations anyway so talking about r ^ 2 is irrelevant. On a much brighter note they have done some of the infrared scanning and early results show anomalies that are consistent with my theory. Indeed, they show what is apparently the entrance to the Mafdet Lynx which is subsumed under the NE corner of the pyramid according to my understanding of the PT and physical evidence. Since this statue is low in the structure and surrounded by walls it seems to have heated up significantly this last summer and is now radiating this heat through the narrow doorway and being seen by the infrared transducers. This is under the light area that shows the location on the gravimetric scan; http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ Since the Mafdet Lynx faces slightly north of ENE itis llikely that this passage leads to the area behind her right foreleg. This is in keeping with ancient thinking since the statue was to "protect" the pyramid and the "temple" at the grotto. You can even see the path leading to it that was very ancient when the pyramid was built around 2700 BC. I suspect this door still works properly and can be opened by merely removing the wooden pin through the upside down dark T shaped stone to the left. This entrance is about 163' south of the NE corner. Things should start moving pretty fast now. There are many more anomalies that will prove my theory but this one they already found is the most important because that path leads straight to the Book of Thot which was their equivalent to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics".

Of course I don't know any of that. I don't know you're real or that some consciousness isn't intentionally trying to make me mispercieve reality. I don't even know that the communicative "property of math (ab=ba) applies in every single case. Maybe it only applies when I check it and that consciousness makes it that way. Maybe sometime I'll check it when He's not looking and find out it's all a fraud. Science may never be able to answer the questions. In 500 years so far we still don't know even the tiniest fraction of 1% of everything that is. If there were such a thing as infinity, our knowledge hardly adds up to its reciprocle. In the meantime I will posit that reality is exactly what it appears to be. I will make a conscious effort to see that reality rather than the models created by science. This is much like ancirent science except that it is augmented by modern science and modern math.

Again, I'm going to have a tough time disagreeing with you because we are in general agreement. However there is only one universe, one possible universe, and a single reality that applies everywhere. In this reality there is a 3: 4: 5 triangle and these proportions can be described mathematically or by other means. The beauty of using math is that physical displacements or distances can be easily and "precisely" communicated. But the triangle doesn't conform or bend to math but rather they both answer to the exact same logic and this logic is everywhere a part of reality. This logic guides a bird's flight and every planet. Nature doesn't perform infinite calculations to keep the stars in orbit but rather the universe can be described by logic.

Indeed. Government can waste more in a second than a village can waste in a lifetime. But the system is unsustainable and the nature of its collapse can not be predicted with any kind of math so it can not be controlled.

This just isn't true. I believe it seems true because of two fundamental misunderstandings. First is the nature of math and second is the nature of reality. We have simply defined nature through experimental results and these seem to be mathematical because math is logical and reality is logical. Math is quantified logic so it's a quantification of reality. In a sense you're exactly right probably because eventually we just might know the equation of reality itself but for now all we have are bits and pieces of math that can be used to solve problems when they are applied properly to the real world. I don't know that all knowledge will ever be simplified to an equation or a mathematical construct so for now all that's left is to examine the hardware and the "owner's manual" (metaphysics). I believe a great deal of math is being misapplied and this gets more apparent every day as the world wastes ever more resources and human talent and human life. We're doing ever more work to waste ever more of everything. Need I even mention this is unsustainable? When people start worrying about all the consumption they want to decrease efficiency even more to combat it. We close efficient (relatively) factories in the US and open inefficient ones with even lower quality in China and ship the products from the other side of the world. Products that once lasted for decades now last for weeks or months. So they just shrink the package, pump it up with water, and put it on sale for double what it used to cost. We even ship all this garbage great distances to put it back into the earth. Math is not the solution to our problems nor to understanding reality. Math is a tool and a very useful one at that. But, it must be appropriate for each of its uses and it obviously is not. This is simply the nature of math as quantified logic and the nature of man to use creative accounting, double billing and double books, lying figures, and cheating prosperous. It can occur even in real science (of which less and less seems to exist every year).

I'm a hardware guy.

I don't so much disagree as I see it from another perspective. Math is quantified logic and reality is most probably completely logical. But it's not math we need to come to understand, it's reality.

I don't know if there is any water to be released, that it ever was, or that it was reabsorbed. However, I believe a relatively long term very slow release or a very short term large release could both give rise to the flood stories.

If the mantle really has a lot of water in it as has been suggested its sudden release could inundate the planet to more than 5,000'.