Meditations

[Anteroinen]

Ah... so it comes back around: we overcome our isolation by humbly asking and being asked about our beliefs, our passions, our ambitions, needs, etc. I emphasize asking and being asked because of the dynamic of potentially forcing our views on others. By asking questions, we benefit ourselves and others and avoid this problem, and hopefully encourage the one we are asking to ask us in return.

This is one of the reasons I will go to study math. Perhaps it is a fools errand, but I want to give people my humble knowledge of something I feel is in a way very beautiful, yet underappreciated, and help them with it somehow. And I want to be asked questions. Answering questions teaches you more than the answers themselves.

Hehehe, and considering where we are having this conversation, I can't help but compare that statement to the Subnet. We are isolated as we wonder around the subnet, only having experiences of our locations, reading notes, and having the desire to... discover? Do all of us here on this forum have some sense of our isolation, a desire to escape and discover? Yet I believe the greatest adventure, the greatest capacity we have to discover, is to ask and be ask about ourselves.

Heh, we are indeed here, all connected by this weird something. I dare say that Submachine intrigues those who ask questions (it isn't like people have stayed for the intriguing romance of Murtaugh and Elizabeth!), and that well all certainly do. With all our theories, opinions and ambitions. But it is a really healthy exercise in that theories also invite questions. Explaining yourself to others is a valuable skill.

[zombyrus]

I'm back once again. I've learned a ton more about religion than I knew the last time I was here. I have a fairly solid grasp on pretty much all the major religious traditions of the world (I think) and I want to share

In response to what Ant said about math, math is incredible and incredibly beautiful. In my opinion, the problem is that many of us don't get far enough in math to realize that... Addition and subtraction aren't awe-inspiring. But when I know how to take my calculator, put it in polar mode, set θ to be from 0 to 20π, and enter the equation r=9sin(1.1θ) and I can sit there and watch as an elaborate mandala that no hand could have drawn creates itself out of a single spiraling line dictated solely by the properties of numbers in themselves, and I see that this incredible loop connects back to its beginning at exactly θ=20π, not a billionth of a radian before or after, that's something profound. The world of math is the perfect world of precision and beauty that we, in the real world, will never come close to attaining. We know that in everything we do we are living with an acceptable margin of error. In math alone is anything ever truly exact, and its exactness is almost beyond imagining.

[The Abacus]

Not too long ago I had asked my mathematics teacher how he would define the subject; he replied (if I recall correctly) by saying "the study of patterns." Alternatively, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space."

I have to agree with these definitions, but I wish to draw special attention to the term "abstract," for it is the reason for why (like you say) mathematics is a perfect world.

The world of math is the perfect world of precision and beauty that we, in the real world, will never come close to attaining. We know that in everything we do we are living with an acceptable margin of error. In math alone is anything ever truly exact, and its exactness is almost beyond imagining.

While that is true, I believe, however, that behind what seems to be a world full of imperfections, there is underlying ordered base. I believe that this not only applies to science, but also extends to events and their seemingly random occurrence. This, however, is nothing more than a belief.

[zombyrus]

I agree that there's an underlying order in everything, or at least nearly everything... there might be real randomness when you get way down to a quantum level or something. I don't know much about quantum stuff. If there were no order at all, then mathematical approximations wouldn't work. We can see the pattern in a lot of things, but the pattern comes with imperfections. I figure these flaws are really flaws in our math, not in the universe--there are just too many factors to come up with a real answer, especially since our units for things like length and weight are fairly arbitrary and our methods of making things are not perfectly in line with our math (by which I mean we can never make a perfect sphere and stuff like that). If we had the mathematical tools to account for all of the small variations in things that end up occurring in the world, I think we would be able to unite the world with the world of math.

[WorldisQuiet5256]

Know Thyself
Through Thyself.

[The Abacus]

I figure these flaws are really flaws in our math, not in the universe--there are just too many factors to come up with a real answer, especially since our units for things like length and weight are fairly arbitrary and our methods of making things are not perfectly in line with our math (by which I mean we can never make a perfect sphere and stuff like that).

I agree that many of our units are fairly arbitrary: the Metric System is based on calculations applied to the distance from the North Pole to the Equator, while the Imperial System (I think) is based on average distances/weights. The light year is also somewhat arbitrary because it is the distance that light travels in an Earth year. Even our common number system has an arbitrary base unit of ten.

By changing our base number we could in fact accurately present numbers like 10/3 numerically, but may also create new ones. The question is, however, whether there exists a base number that could remove all repeating decimals.

[zombyrus]

There is most definitely not a base that would remove all repeating decimals unless there is a finite amount of prime numbers, which I'm almost certain is not the case. I think we tend to overestimate how much changing bases would change our mathematics, though. It would change how we write down our numbers, but it wouldn't change the values or relative positions of the numbers.

I could be mistaken here, though. I saw a video once that was talking about how, in base 10, nobody has thus far been able to rigorously prove that the digits of pi are randomly distributed (meaning a perfectly equal probability of the next number being any of the digits). However, in base 60 (I think it was 60 anyway), it can and has been proven to be random distribution. But if knowing that it's really random in base 60 doesn't prove that it's really random in base 10, then there might be number-theory types of differences that the base would cause that I don't know anything about.

World: I am reading a book called The White Castle (by Orhan Pamuk) that is largely about identity stuff like that. I don't have time now, but I'll come back to say more about it (maybe in an edit)

[WorldisQuiet5256]

There are those who read, and there are those who travel while they read,

[The Abacus]

There is most definitely not a base that would remove all repeating decimals unless there is a finite amount of prime numbers, which I'm almost certain is not the case. I think we tend to overestimate how much changing bases would change our mathematics, though. It would change how we write down our numbers, but it wouldn't change the values or relative positions of the numbers.

What about a base of two (like binary)?

I saw a video once that was talking about how, in base 10, nobody has thus far been able to rigorously prove that the digits of pi are randomly distributed (meaning a perfectly equal probability of the next number being any of the digits). However, in base 60 (I think it was 60 anyway), it can and has been proven to be random distribution. But if knowing that it's really random in base 60 doesn't prove that it's really random in base 10, then there might be number-theory types of differences that the base would cause that I don't know anything about.

Huh, interesting.

Know Thyself
Through Thyself.

Yes, you can't realise yourself if people tell you who you are and you listen to them.

[The Kakama]

Know Thyself
Through Thyself.

Yes, you can't realise yourself if people tell you who you are and you listen to them.

Indeed. Although sometimes you might need another perspective to help you see yourself, in the end it is your decision to decide who you are.