kristalris

Ophilolite: indeed that is just it. We should all just behave. Where we find these judges? Well in most western "civilized" countries they are already there. Certainly in the Netherlands. The personality traits needed otherwise for what you need for judge has already been selected: both conscientiousness and openness and a degree of ego and speed of brain and having behaved all their lives have been checked. The only thing you then need is to select within this group on openness and create a safe environment with authority and you've got it. An above par good goal orientated guess as to the truth. If the law system as ultimum remedium above par hits the truth then it will pay off to behave and not pay off not to. The current perverted way it is quite the opposite. it pays off to play the rigid system via making conscientious use of the loopholes in the law. => you get unjust winners and losers. => ends predictably in becoming more and more unpredictable => catastrophic conflict or war. If it pays of to behave and doesn't not to on average the system will stabilize itself. how exactly? Ask R&D for advice. Which R&D? Well the ones everybody in any organisation will be forced to put up. For otherwise you run the great risk of getting into a legal conflict you will lose. Ergo you enforce a Just applied science. Even to science BTW that is ill as well as DSMV proves. Strange: Well, it is a question of definition really. And dependent on the stated goal. Just proof has as its goal: a long and fulfilling life the least as possible infringing on others in reaching that goal. The religion if you like of Just Proof is that its worshipers strongly feel that this goal can only be reached when on average above par you guess correctly how to act on that goal. They are also convinced that the goal can only be reached by abiding by the laws of logic, the laws of nature and what we think we further more or less know about nature all within the boundaries where the knowledge applies. In short trust in correctly applied science. Just Proof is also a self correcting and learning by mistakes religion or non religion. Even on the stated goal. A mathematician objected to the goal of pursuit of happiness that I first used. Well good critique so I changed it into a fulfilling life. Proof BTW that we as humans are above par good intuitive guessers: we are still here over the past 100000 years without current science the greater part of it. Ergo thus not claiming science where there is none to be had. Then you have to guess. Behavioral science already shows that there are people who are good goal orientated above par guessers: the open minded types. measurable via having lateral thought (= taking everything literally) / perceived as humour as a survival trait and open-mindedness on the relation measurable as having irony. Ergo learn to take humour and irony serious. Yet don't use it in court other than in correctly teaming up. Good is thus above par guess and bad a below par guess. In the Just Proof philosophy or religion everybody should be treated with respect. yet you can respectfully get a shellacking if you misbehave on the norm. You thus have as complete as possible freedom. In stead of growing and growing the legal system will with Just Proof slowly shrink to a predetermined yet via R&D to be established optimum (=as small as possible) size. The greatest problem is for Just proof that it is taboo in several ways. Why will it work? It already worked in the past. I'm just stealing idea's that have proven to work in practice. Thus it is far from as naive as you might think. Again the legal system is an essential emergency brake NOT to be misused as a normal brake as is more and more the case. it is a proven to work system having people behave and allowing them to make mistakes. Remember on the ape norm we humans are DNA failed apes. Rigid law systems don't allow for mistakes. Just proof does. In effect the difference between civil and criminal law. In a more and more rigid system any civil infringement can also be penalized, yet then you have no more mistakes that prove to be advantageous in the long run as we failed apes prove. Oh and on culture indeed. Yet it works there too. In any culture as long as it has a democracy and a legal system. Any other system will become more and more rigid and fail in the long run, for it then can not in the long run make the needed above par correct creative guess. As any aircraft factory also needs to do in deciding what new plane to build or go bust if they get it wrong. R&D is about above par creative (= indeed subjective) guesswork.

Rereading the thread, I guess that not everybody sees the impact that a legal system has on society, and even science. DSMV wouldn't exist if it wasn't that it works in courts. If in a court of law it is deemed that you are allowed to hit you children than it will lead to many parents doing so. If it is forbidden than it will result in far less hitting of children. Ultimately it is the courts who decide who wins and who looses. I've been trying to find the behavioral research that was done with apes (I think it where gorilla's) in a cage or the wild I can't remember. If the alpha male protected the weaker apes of the group then there was far less trouble in the group then when the alpha male didn't protect the weak. The legal system when it works correctly will perform the same function. When everybody in the world is treated justly then you will see that the overpopulation will slowly reside. Also the chances of conflicts getting out of hand will reside. Without that the crisis that will ensue and are already ensuing as I write this will spin out of control in an ever greater way. Only a permanent just order can prevent that. It is extremely basic based on our survival traits. The system at the moment is going more and more banana's.

I guess if you combine solar panels with small rooftop windmills then the combination would provide a more steady power supply. In the Netherlands when the sun doesn't shine we often do have wind. I would be in favor of copying the Danes who have made themselves independent of the rest of the world for power. And I guess that copying the Germans in having the possibility to get payed properly for the energy given to the net would also help in getting sustainable power supply and having people invest in their own power supply.. Small rooftop windmills I'm told are very quiet. Yet I'm not quite certain as to the life cycle and maintenance cost.

Yes you are quite right. From a scientific viewpoint we apart from (taken absolute even excluding) pure mathematics can never get past a probable guilt as an absolute proof. Yet you miss the stipulative definition of proof: probative value past a set norm. I.e. when the situation arises i.e. is proven that we will act as if it is so: i.e. proven. Always leaving open the possibility to disprove. So there are more norms than one. You seem to think only one norm can be used for proof. All dependent upon the amount of risk you want to take of being wrong. So we in real life are left to make decisions as do judges to the best of our ability in order to reach our set goals. Because we are always inherently out of a lot of evidence as humans in general but also as a judge or even a say physicist scientist. For who knows all that science knows including what is incorrectly seen as science at the moment. We have to trust each other in order to work together. The distinction between your feeling and rationality is in part a false dichotomy. The instrument between our ears has evolved in a great way. I.e. if you feel that something is wrong => the instrument is trying to tell you something! Yet it should be understood to be different instruments that don't all work the same way and thus need to be properly aligned in order to work properly. These are social instruments that hurt each other if incorrectly wired together. The Romans already figured out how to put the wiring via actually one of the few things they have originally (= creatively intelligent) come up with themselves: Roman law. Nearly all our western societies trace back to this. Study law and see it work correctly and incorrectly in practice and you will understand this is so. Tried and tested. It works if done properly. Law done properly is honest goal orientated guesswork in attempting to keep a Just order within limitations set by the law in time money resources. In order for it to be Just, the truth function should be optimally dealt with for trying (and of course often failing) to stay within the laws of logic, nature and take into serious account broadly held insights derived from them. All within the appropriate boundaries in which these scientific laws of logic & nature apply. Not keeping a Just order leads as history clearly shows to disorder in which the truth and thus justice is the first causality. In effect we thus have to work on strongly held rules of thumb by educated guesswork. Yet not doing that things go on tilt. Certain instruments and more if you create a safe environment are better at the needed above par guesswork on the stated goal. Other instruments between the ears are better at conscientiously following the book. Both is critical yet these two instruments are like matter and anti matter when not properly married. This is basic current widely held assessment psychology. Actually it is DNA in a DNA environment but that is taboo for reasons actually following stated psychological insights: a paradigm leads to an inherent confirmation bias. Only if the leader peer starts seeing it different will it change, or when the peer changes who by changing the paradigm lower the voltage. Or when after a mounting hell of a lot of work the creative high voltage Volt meter provides all the necessary high voltage rewiring for the majority low voltage yet highly intelligent voltmeters. Otherwise all not paradigm is out of the box high voltage rejected idea's. This also leads to a split society: take DSM V that as an estimate has 47,5 % of the population as mad. If you observe this more and coincides with the losers and winners in society. Yet the losers are the choosers i.e. voters in a democracy => instability we readily observe more and more in politics. DSM V stems not only from science but also out of dis-functioning courts. The courts can and should remedy this by prohibiting the use of DSM V and use my DSM 7 (in my DSM 6 everyone with few exceptions is mad.) in stead. Exactly the same only then less than 1% mad etc. Problems need a change in society. So then a psychiatrist must more often say: you aren't mad yet society is and I'll give you this drug to help you keep functional in this crazy society. This is only acceptable if the psychiatrist also at least tells society he's forced to drug sane people. better is when he points how to reorganize society. That is in part how Just Proof works. It is BTW how it already more or less worked twenty years ago in practice yet then as well there was a fundamental flaw. Internet has worked as a catalyst speeding up a downward spiral. The system still works yet is under to much and mounting pressure. That it is buckling under the pressure is difficult to see if you don't know where to look, yet obvious if you do.

If you do A have a legal system in which the wise judge does educated guesses above par (your prior odds before someone goes to court) correctly and you don't thus have loopholes in the law on the stated goal of everybody having as long as possible happy lives the least possibly infringing on others, than indeed it won't pay off to misbehave on that goal. For logically you will loose. History / psychology / logic shows that working together on a stated reachable goal will probably succeed. It even works with animals. take a dog at the farm house. He won't eat the chickens even when the farmer is not at the farm, as long as the dog is afraid to get caught. Only when the farmer stays away for very long will the dog turn "wolf" again and eat chickens especially if he isn't fed. This has even been shown with Gorillas in captivity. If the alpha male makes shore that the weak apes are protected by him and grant them a good life there is much less fighting in the cage. When the alpha male is unjust then that results in more fighting. Overpopulating rats leads to fighting in such cases. There is as far as I know very little discussion on the fact that unjust systems especially when put under stress will resort to instability and violence. If you use rigid systems logic has it that they invariably have loopholes in which unjust winners logically generating unjust looser's will result. Psychology and logic show that only open minded people can do above average guesses in situations of incomplete evidence. It is a proven survival trait for otherwise we humans should logically have gone extinct over the past 100000 years. We haven't. Why? Above average guesswork by the creative. Is every human creative? Yes. Is every human above par creative? No. We wouldn't of survived otherwise for it pays of more to go by the book in most cases. In a safe environment only 49% is above par creative on tasks with incomplete evidence yet forced to take a decision. In an unsafe situation it is only 9% and extremely unsafe only the fearless (incorrectly seen as psychopaths) can cope. Standard psychology BTW. Just Proof as depicted creates the necessary safe environment for judges. This will immediately be acknowledged by intelligent searchers of loopholes. They are gone so it only logically pays off to behave. When society in a crises breaks down the law of the strongest comes into play as history and recent history clearly shows. (hardly anyone disputes that.) All rigid systems logically have loopholes and thus logically lead to unjust law systems. BTW the psychology is textbook stuff. Current widely accepted albeit soft science.

Indeed if done incorrectly, as now which is why things have gotten out of hand, yet not so when done correctly which is what Just Proof entails.

Oh dear oh dear. That is a very narrow definition. And granted Mathematical proof is close to absolute proof. Yet what word would you use to speak about a proven murderer? A probable murderer? But isn't it then proven to be a probable murderer? Just Proof "proof" means that the posterior odds are past the given norm. And unless this in fact mathematical way of looking at it doesn't make sense to you then please take into consideration that no-one in science questions the correctness of that. They might prefer other ways of expressing it via in effect stipulative definitions. Make sense to you? In my Just Proof alternative I've stressed what is going wrong and indeed might not be averted because we are already to late. Yet on the other hand we might not be so on the up side we humans also already have a whole lot of technology at hand that should be able to solve the problem relatively quickly if only we get our DNA types balanced so to speak. Otherwise say a new high yielding crop technology will only aggravate the problem for causing a faster overpopulation. Only when people are in balance and content with a felt to be secure future will you have the possibility of naturally stemming overpopulation (etc. etc.). We need to look at the problem both locally and globally at the same time. Yet what ever idea you have you need first to balance the use of the emergency brake: the last braking device before a fighting conflict like a war breaks out. For what is perceived to happen as a result of pulling that break will - naturally !- be copied in the whole of society. Our society is at the moment changing faster than our social structures can cope with. Especially internet can bring great good but also great instability if not dealt with in courts of law. The conflicts in the Arab world are induced as a conditio sine qua non by internet, I'm quite shore. If they would of had a Just society you wouldn't of had the conflict. Further more all conflicts in the world have the nasty ability to be the fuse and the spark of a greater event with weapons of mass destruction when it spirals out of control. As has happened often in the past. We need a global Just system in effect asap. Start with our selves. it will be copied. Also I think it good to point out the error in reasoning by those who think: "well let it go wrong because good will come from that". Indeed good came from WWI and WWII and even I guess from Pol Pot. Yet I'd prefer not to go that route. The price is (& was) to high (and because of weapons of mass destruction even higher still.) Our Western system is unjust at the moment and starting to come apart at the seems. This can relatively easily be remedied all the scientific / historic (Roman etc.) insights are already there to be implemented. And again: Just Proof is about less rules, laws, lawyers and court cases. Preferably no court cases as the unreachable ideal. Yet then of course you keep the legal system. Like you keep an army even when there is no war. In the above Just Proof idea I do take into account the assumption that in most if not all western societies the judges are chosen as being with few exceptions honest and conscientious and more or less above average intelligent and also emotionally so. Otherwise that also needs prior attention.

Thanks for your reaction. Humans are indeed humans:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus yet this means two things: good and bad. It needs balance. And that can indeed IMO be organized as history also shows BTW. Yet the idea of Just Proof is to organize the absolute minimum and have the system repair its self. Your example doesn't depict Just Proof. Just Proof has humans in all their strong and weak points central as do BTW most legal systems in theory. The difference between civil and penal law is just the understanding that all civil infringements could in a rigid system also be dealt with as a criminal offence. You shouldn't for we must learn to accept the honest mistake. Like again our DNA is a on the ape norm a faulty copy of an ape. There most certainly is no total reliance on the law. If the law fails it's war. It is the last station before war, so the law should within Just Proof only be used as an emergency brake. You should never have total reliance on only the emergency brake. That is exactly my point. I.e. make shore that you organize it such that you don't like now can win in a perverted way in court. More and more if you conscientiously fool the other you win whereas you should loose. Only by stopping this as you do in Just Proof do you fundamentally stabilize the system.

Is there a world to save then? Many scientists as do I think there is. We humans are systematically over-stressing the system and inevitably going for a catastrophic failure. We are overpopulating, overproducing, over selling, over expecting and "over everything" in an extremely irresponsible and mounting way. We in the past already have had two bangs one in 1914 which has eerie similarity to the situation in Europe at the moment and the situation in Asia / China resembles that of Japan before WWII. Not to mention mounting environmental problems. And the mounting political instability where by tea party Republicans are on a war footing with Democrats and vice versa. Same in Europe with rising nationalism. Not to mention the mounting instability in the Muslim world. In effect the history is repeating itself. The solution is IMO very simple yet taboo and thus extremely complex to achieve: Just Proof: Have 10% of all open minded judges (= the ones with the most original humour) in any legal system in a new R&D court branch in order to give temporary integral advice in all cases to the judge / jury. Let these if they don't agree or have doubt send 1% to 5% of the cases back for new advice in order to reach consensus. And have appeal for when this consensus has not been reached. When things go wrong or maybe are going wrong and that is also when less than 1% or more than 5% or silly stuff gets sent back then you must have an "air crash investigation" even of the supreme courts. Why this works is simple. It is in effect already tried and tested and conforms to logic and what our theory of human behavior depicts. Put your team in order according to current psychology on the R&D, production and sales. All three are critical. In effect you then have a safe environment in which educated honest guess work is sold instead of near perfection in order to keep a Just order. In the latter more and more everybody will not only start to behave but also the same system will via natural necessity be copied: thus R&D, production and sales which leads to wisdom because the correct teaming has been effected. If we all start to work wisely on any stated reachable goal this goal will sooner or later be reached, because we humans - as a correctly teamed up collective - otherwise wouldn't of been here. We did this via testing creatively intelligent ideas and subsequently when proven correct producing and selling it. The wise judge doesn't know of loopholes in the law on important issues. The legal system should be seen as an emergency brake and not a normal brake. Wanting to throw this brake out because it is used to much is an error in reasoning. A Just Proof method immediately deregulates yet by leaving all rules formally intact. It only slowly divides all the rules in important, less important and not important. The latter for the trainees, the uninterested and the mentally challenged. The cost savings are enormous. Because in a Just state all conflicts are ultimately decided in courts of law if all else fails ultimately here do you get your winners and loosers, If the system is indeed just then above par the justified winners indeed win and the justified loosers indeed loose. What is justified? For that a sated goal is needed: let's say a long and happy (as in what ever makes you tick even if it is the opposite of what make others tick.) the least as possible infringing on that goal of others. => forced to give and take in order to cooperate as enforceable Just law. The legal system will thus be needed less and less yet must remain as the emergency handle providing maximum freedom to all. To make more or less acceptable mistakes (remember we humans are DNA mistakes on the ape-norm!) But how then to change the perverted way in which the legal and other systems are financed? Simple ask for advice on the R&D branches that will have sprung up all over the place of which you know that they will provide above average good testable guesses. In short why this will work. IMO this is much more DNA ant-heap of distinguishable different DNA working in on each other than is politically correct to state, but even if you take the current psychology nurture stance the analyses and cure is in effect the same. We must take into account our reptile brain, our small social mammal brain, our ape (> 90% the same) brain and our human brain and organize accordingly. This leads me to the belief that the parliamentary democracy is the least bad form of governance as Churchill also put it. Logic true is what 50% + 1 think. To balance this against the whim of the day most systems have a senate / house of lords type shock absorber built in. In the Trias Politica we also have the legal system to balance it all. The trait of having an open mind measurable via original goal orientated humour shows the creative nerd who is capable of making a fully adult goal orientated above par Yin and yang guess. That still leaves the possibility of being a nerd that is a emotionally intelligent six year old for taking everything literally. Showing feeling for irony as well shows the open mind on the relationship as well. The socially competent nerd. On You Tube I go into this further in my playlist on the Just Proof appeal that is still work in progress. To add to this and yet to be changed in the films: DSM 6 is identical to DSMV and only differs in that everybody is deemed mad and retarded and genius with less than 1% exceptions. Depicted in a humoristic way. DSM7 is the Boring Bayesian inversion of DSM 6 for use in the courts: everybody is normal with less than 1% exceptions. Bare in mind that say anorexia nervosa is thus to be seen as something to be tested as not a mental disorder but a normal reaction to a sick society. Change society and I predict that mental disorders as DSM V has many more will simply subside and vanish unless irreparable damage has been done with certain instruments between the ears. Also bare in mind that certain traits are simply normal such as ADHD (= Newton) and ADD etc (= Einstein). These are your thinkers and doers of the thinkers. The high Voltage Volt meters that can take high stress levels by guessing out of the box above average. Low Voltage Voltmeters deem this high voltage dangerously mad. Only when in a safe environment is created by the authority is the voltage turned down. Or when the high voltage thinker minority provide all the necessary book wiring conforming to current paradigm in order to show a necessary change is in a timely order if you don't want to close the barn door after the horse has bolted like a baboon clinging on to a paradigm banana. We humans act like baboons in this respect because as with the baboon it is a survival trait. Further more bare in mind that I have yet also to show that fighters are naturally politically right wing, freezers are religious at heart and flirters are left wing at heart. because we more or less combine all traits the way in which you have the mix depicts your natural tendency. A sociable nerd put under stress is still at heart a fighter yet can at a high if not to high stress-level still be sociable. ceteris paribus for speed of brain, knowledge and experience however never as good sociably as a born flirter. All types are further more both to be seen in the male as female variants. That's why via organizing this we save the world. Taboo because the authority - incorrectly! - believes that it is in their short term (sales) and medium term (= production) interests to keep the status quo being either left, right, or religious. You - always - thus will have an unstable system in the long run. Just proof will force all traits to work together on the common goal: ultimately in court of law. We all win. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLel4K7I4PMZkOl6qQZ4h3RqN9BLvS0dQj

Hmm, seven bad rep points. I wonder should someone be able to pass a physics exam when having forgot to take into account the most important instrument to be used? Say an amp-meter accurate A and not accurate B types and both in hi: H and low L amperage types. And the Volt meters A and B and Hi and Low Voltage. You mix it up and blow up the Voltmeter during the exam. Yet give off bad rep points. Out of the paradigm is a high Voltage measurement. MN has provided a minority of us with this H type. You can measure this by checking if it has original humour. An amp-meter has irony ability BTW. You lot measure a high Voltage idea and blow up. Demanding that I rewire you before measurement. Why do the simple test? Well, you get there quicker if the idea proves correct for it delivers a paradigm shift => you then can measure that higher Voltage as well. Unless you already know there is no red-shift difference between one and another side of a distant galaxy? If you don't how come bad rep points? Edit: And two more negative rep points. Oh lest I forget, any paradigm shift question is out of the box and thus inherently high voltage. This doesn't mean to say the to be tested idea is correct or not. The to be tested machine might work or not work, that is for the test to show. yet it is always high voltage. MN has provided humour as a clear survival trait in order to handle these high voltage questions and come up with good testable idea's. A good idea might prove not to work, concluding then it was a bad idea is committing the fallacy of a hind sight bias. To distinguish between good and bad idea's requires humour. If you lack humour and pose position on high voltage issues you blow up and thus deem any out of the box idea good or bad as bad. This says more about you than the idea. The test BTW might prove to be un-measurable and thus not provide an answer. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try and take an as accurate as possible look. For if there indeed is a measurable constant red-shift anomaly with GR then GR is shot right out of the water with its absolutely straight flying photon. Yet even in that case GR reamins a valid law of physics, yet within a new constraint of a found boundary.

I smell a humourless cookie monster.Anyway I forgot to ad a bit of my playlist showing where current science goes wrong in reasoning, it is not democratic: Watch 23:19 end of argument on the game of reason to 29:06 end of showing the incorrect way of reasoning a democratic majority of scientists commit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83aGieH4MWU&list=PLel4K7I4PMZnPwNrAzoTRJ-eK3JH3Dl4F Problem for you is nowhere do I one iota infringe on logic or any observation of science, yet I provide a testable proposition (even plural). Enjoy.

GR & QM as an mathematical extrapolation assume a mass-less, absolutely straight flying photon. This has never been observed. So it is a galloping unicorn that probably is preventing marrying these two best laws (not theories) we humans have ever had. Logic dictates that striving for a TOE you discard all boundaries and there is one in between GR & QM. So we can as a speculation replace one galloping unicorn by another. we can assume an infinite amount of unspun gravitons in a field and an infinite amount of larger slower Higgs particles being spun into Gluons (Gravitons causing spin two in stead of having that) whereby all mass is un-splitable un-compressible yet deformable and only on average act like a perfect elastic sphere. A photon can thus be seen as built up of two counter rotating interlocked spiraling strings of six Gluons each. Matter and anti matter energy packet. Flying seemingly straight and having a meter long wave in the double fields. All held together by the pressure of the infinite universe. Larger strings can't hit c in the same way a helicopter can't hit mach 1 because the tip of the rotor hits mach 1. The larger the helicopter the slower you get. Like an atom. In another thread I went into the sort of order this probably is: a double dynamic crystal. It thus probably is a hologram and that accounts for not having interference other than in the double slit experiment when you detour the photon in one of the slits having the stern wave in effect catching up through the other slit causing interference. When observed you hit the energy packet with Gluons keeping it ahead of the stern wave: no interference. Entanglement because the crystal helps keep the order two extra strings are provided for the split photon. One polarized Alice and one Bob. This was in the cards at the making of the photon in the laser. The second measurement breaks the symmetry. No Spooky Voodoo needed all nicely Newton. Easily testable by seeing if light from a distant galaxy is more red-shifted at one side than the other: if so accelerating photon holding c in the curve and like a car curving in at twice the Newton value. For the time being when having a QM or GR problem simply take the photon to be mass-less and straight flying again. It will work within the boundaries.if you don't go to small or outside where you can expect the particles of the SM to be present. No beginning no end multi-verse as our universe. No where does this speculation infringe on any science whatsoever. For gravity is simply the under pressure caused by Higgs field becoming one of eight sizes of Gluon. A hit no hit scenario like a machine gun firing through a propeller. The jumping of the electron is an observed speed > c. because we are built up out of strings we only observe movement at c, akin like when pushing a large boat from a jetty first doesn't seem to move either. An illusion you all fell for. Assuming that it isn't magic like something from nothing Escher institute mathematics less likely than having a God that isn't a blatant contradiction then MN is probably an illusionist and in that case it all has probably got more simple in stead of difficult given more evidence since Einstein also pointed out that God doesn't play dice and that it probably are hidden variables at play. Well they are already described then by science..The only thing we have to do is work it like a crime scene. Don't ry to get a paradigm change by clinging on to a paradigm method that is proven wrong already by the simple fact that it can't disprove this position yet will never show result if this position is indeed correct. => only testing a creatively fully adult yin and yang guess does that. Humour and relative thought is a survival trait to be taken seriously.. If you can only guess well what the authority of peers think or what is probably best for the relationship or for yourself the latter the psychopath who isn't mad at all yet only fearless for not being able to guess that something bad might happen which is also good for survival in 1% of cases. Yet leads to bizarre guesses whereas the others guess below par thus you will then not reach a stated goal. In an unsafe environment only 9% can guess above par. In a safe environment it is only 49%. Current GR & QM are yin without yang. No tension thus per observable correct definition lame. Evident incomplete evidence and the Lex parsimony dictate this correct and it is not democratic majority peer rule. It is your prime suspect and thus not yet the proven culprit yet in need of investigation.

Studiot and md65536 you still don't get it. Mathematics inherently doesn't solve the garbage in problem. Zeno tried clearly in vain to teach you this. You may only in pure mathematics go into the stated problem, for only then can it have meaning. Thus you must then exclude Achilles and the tortoise for they have no meaning in pure mathematics. That you maybe can solve the purely mathematical / pure logical problem also in lingual logic is beside the point.

Contrary to what you stated earlier, the issue on Zeno is IMO about the divide between pure mathematics / pure logic and reality. Achilles and a tortoise have no place in that and are thus a problem in reality. Put in other words: on the game / chess board of reason on a pure logic problem the ultimate arbiter is mathematics even though lingual logic can also get quite far. On a question about reality it is intuitive lingual set up as a garbage or non garbage position that decides the issue where mathematics does not even come into play for otherwise you end up in a Escher like conundrum, that Zeno I believe was trying to teach us. Only when you have an observed non intuitive solution to a problem do we have a true paradox, to be taken as a seeming contradiction by scientists in search for an intuitive i.e. simple solution. This by as matter of course (or for Yanks as a standard operating procedure) then check the prior set up: or prior assumptions, by changing these in order to see what that as a testable thought experiment leads to.

I agree with Zeno then. And I thus can agree with what you think he meant.

Studiot you are dodging the issue. You have to point out what is wrong with intuitively providing a complete solution to Zeno via taking it as a fact that Achilles - given certain assumptions - will overtake the tortoise?

Tar I agree with md65536. As soon as you start to use to much words to clarify the position words lose from the mathematics. Words only win when you don't get yourself lured into the deep thought of a seeming contradiction that a paradox should be understood to be. An apparent seeming contradiction can immediately and logically be taken as to be just that: a seeming contradiction. This proves the strength of lingual common sense over unnecessary and thus dangerously over-complicating in effect simple problems via mathematics or long lingual reasoning. Dangerous as in lessening the probability of reaching a stated goal to which the reasoning was used. In effect several stated paradoxes in physics suffer the same problem. Such as entanglement. The problem nearly always lies in taking a wrong turn at the start of the game: in the assumptions or garbage or non garbage taken into the logic. There is a religious lure that draws the majority in to a problem that isn't there if treated correctly from the start. Thus the rule of science should be on Zeno as a metaphor for all such paradoxes: if you spot a non intuitive solution having thus a possible contradiction always check all your assumptions, for you probably have made a mistake there. You can check this via changing the prior assumptions and see where that leads in comparison. In Zeno thus you have a intuitive solution namely taking it as a fact that Achilles will overtake the tortoise => no problem => then don't create one.

So we can conclude that there are possible lingual solutions to paradoxes if these are only seeming contradictions such as Zeno. The observation that Achilles will overtake the tortoise can be taken as a fact and thus we have a ready answer to our question whether or not Achilles will overtake the tortoise. It's a fact: he will. This concurs with the far more complex mathematical solution, and thus we can also conclude that on questions like these lingual logic is superior to mathematics in quickly and correctly solving the problem. The law of science the Lex parsimony is breached when questions are put up that have no relevance for they assume a contradiction that isn't there.

read the edit. And edit 2: the previous post proves that on appropriate questions verbal logic beats mathematics. Like concerning the paradoxes such as Zeno's.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear, now you say that you in science may not take the observation as a fact. As soon as you've done that and the question is whether or not that fact is a fact or not has become waffle. For it is a fact. That is a bit difficult of course. Point is dear physica that this is the essence of science mate. I.e. taking the observation as a fact. And you qualify me as less than a moron. Hilarious. You are only on about authority:i.e. warning points, reputation points, being embarrassed........that dear physica is indeed what religion is all about. You are clearly only authority minded: I.e. you treat science as a religion. The religion of the paradigm. Anyone that doesn't guess what the authority peers would guess are morons etc.. In science - as a dictate - dear physica the observation taken as fact reigns supreme, because it isn't religion. You expressly state just the opposite. Namely that you think there still is some problem left. Again a hilarious Bayesian inversion! And, it's also quite clear that irony isn't beyond you. Clearly one of your strong points. Getting a bossing from you is clearly quit enjoyable. Just to help you again: fact: Achilles overtakes the tortoise as observation = fact => question does Achilles overtake the tortoise? YES oh why then? It's a bloody FACT! The rest is waffle. Why then the paradox? Well creatively intelligent people think you mean paradox as a seeming contradiction, then there is no problem. The other half of the populace take it as a contradiction and start to try to go into deep thought. A bit like when Neil Armstrong said: "a small step for man, a large step for mankind" sent a great many off into deep - religious - thoughts. Whereas Neil only forgot to say "a" at the appropriate point, as he later stated to indeed have made a mistake.

Well Physica, have you thrown in the towel? Guess so then, for I answered your questions, yet you didn't answer mine: what do you mean by giving someone a bossing?

Well, it seems that I'm not allowed to react logically correctly in full given the interpretation of science rampant on the site. I use "paradox" as in a seeming contradiction. You still don't grab this even though I repeated this more than once. You are clearly someone of great IQ, great knowledge and great experience, great EQ and more over great creative intelligence thus correctly one of great reputation, how can that be? Your correct use of mathematics reaches exactly the same answer as correct logic does, yet much slower and with much more effort. So on this problem lingual logic wins hands down and mathematics supports that. Unless you wish to state you were quicker coming to the same answer with mathematics?What added worth does your exact description of Zeno bring you to what end? I.e. only use mathematics where it applies. It indeed always can be used, but please don't claim ascendancy, that depends on the issue when to use it and when not to. With Zeno: don't. Zeno is only a complicated strawman of mathematics on lingual logic as the mathematics indeed correctly shows. BTW: Tar thanks. BTW2 Physica, what is a bossing?

I have to repeat myself. Put in a different way then: Do you dispute that Achilles beats the tortoise in reality? I guess you don't. Hence all the complicated mathematical / logical reasoning's that ensue are moot.And proven to be moot they don't need direct answers by me. It is thus only a seeming contradiction that follows. For only if Achilles in reality doesn't beet the tortoise do we have a contradiction with what we first thought was the answer. Or put in an other way still: we have no contradiction to start with. Then you start complicating matters (= scientifically incorrect) into a seeming contradiction, that linguistically can't and mathematically can be solved glossing over the fact that you created a problem that linguistically wasn't there in the first place. Linguistic logic wins on the Lex parsimony in correctly and quickly solving the problem. a feat you can't as quickly and correctly do in mathematics. The Lex parsimony BTW is a law of science. You strive for the truth in the most economic way: i.e. as complicated as needed yet as simple as possible. Solving Zeno needs nothing more than to state that Achilles probably always (given specific assumptions) will overtake the tortoise. Everything that then follows is on this fundamental law of science garbage in and thus moot. In short: mathematics can't solve the inherent garbage in problem of Zeno if you as 80% / 50% of scientists due to the instrument between the ears simply can't help themselves from doing. That and that alone makes Zeno interesting for the same goes for say entanglement. A 6 year old Einstein would spot this immediately and not be beguiled by the authority. Only maybe at a later age he could of been beguiled but that then is social influence to which nearly no-one is completely impervious. Oh BTW I wear my - 60 or so rep points with pride for the Bayesian inversion they entail. Authority question creative minds only see as a prior odds and thus worth little in a goal orientated debate. Now what does your deeming it important portray? Edit and BTW can you exclude the possibility that Zeno gave his paradox to show the effect what happens when you make the first error? Namely that you end up in a complicated sometimes even unsolvable conundrum? Part of the psychology involved is nicely illustrated by Neil Armstrong's : "a small step for man, a large step for mankind." putting a whole lot of authority driven minds in a mind-loop. We know now for he said so that he meant to say "a" at the appropriate moment.

A lingual statement about infinity is when dealing with seeming contradictions such as Zeno's paradox the best way to avoid making horrendous errors in reality reasoning like reasoning like you do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox Zeno's paradox is not a real logical paradox. It only becomes that after you've made the mistake of not spotting it to be what it is: a seeming contradiction. Only after you've made that mistake can indeed mathematics show that you did that. well then, don't make the mistake in the first place. Infinity in mathematics is an absolute. In logic dealing with an actual problem in reality not necessarily so. What makes the Zeno paradox interesting is that it clearly divides the different instruments between the ears into the sorts they are in the way they treat the Zeno problem. Such as the question whether or not to take the cosmos infinite or not. In lingual approaches to such problems as Zeno you have an acceptable yet not exactly determinable room for error making it possible to act and act quickly using the instrument between the ears correctly on such questions. I.e. intuitively, and creatively by those with such an instrument. This can also be done of course via formal mathematics yet would be extremely arduous and provide an even higher error rate, As Zeno shows. If you take it - as you in reality should such problems - as a seeming contradiction, then it is game over before it really begun. All your further points are moot. Hence my reaction to them: So after this reaction: It only divides those creatively intelligent instruments who quickly spot that and those sometimes even highly intelligent yet non creative instruments that don't spot it into two clearly divided groups as neuro-psychology and psychology and history very clearly show like Zeno does.In a safe environment half the populaces score below average on an educated guess, and not only that they on average don't reach their intended goal. They are simply not built to guess, being a survival trait involving homour and imagination not for the fun of it but again for survival of the whole. As are the other needed in the same way by not guessing. Zeno is a clear divider as a psychological test so to speak. So I humbly propose you admit to have made a mistake for then you can still claim above average creative intelligence. Yet if you are not creative why be so arrogant as to claim it? There are more forms of intelligence than just creative intelligence. I claim to be creatively intelligent and can prove that if you like. As for me spotting that Zeno is what it is: a seeming contradiction best solved in verbal logic. Yes the democratic majority rule. Well, 80% of the populace including 80% of the fastest thinkers are "flawless freezers" i.e. in an unsafe environment will state what the authority states for their logic is on what they - above average correctly guess - what that authority will state on the subject. You simply like 80% / 50% can't get past the first point: it is worse than fools mate. Zeno is a non problem in reality: Achilles overtakes the tortoises barring a heart attack or a meteorite strike or the like. No contradiction. Then don't construe one! That is the lesson of Zeno.