What is math? Math is the study of light...

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No. I think you should read MrDudeMan's post, smoke some weed instead of the crack you've been on, then revisit the discussion when you can pretend to be civilized.

OP is determined to fail hard. His constant need to defend an incoherent idea with dribble is pretty entertaining though.

I've made the claims that:

1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are coherent perceptual structures
3) That perceptual forms are data

Is that incoherent dribble? I didn't think so either.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
My e-peen is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis long! I've been saying so this entire thread, so it must be true!

No. I think you should read MrDudeMan's post, smoke some weed instead of the crack you've been on, then revisit the discussion when you can pretend to be civilized.

Ok I figured out where we went wrong, and why we're arguing over definitions.

Ok now this should be clear, I'm asking you to give the definition of information here

Eyes detect patterns of what?
Ears detect patterns of what?
Neurons detect patterns of what?

A pattern is a perceptual structure. Perceptual structures, a perceptual unit, or patterns-of-units.

Now do your eyes gather INFORMATION about the environment?
Do your ears gather INFORMATION about the environment?

Now give me a definition of the word information you understand is used in the above sentence.

This is where we went wrong... do your eyes gather information about the environment? Now does your brain gather information about It's own internal environment?

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Gannon
1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are coherent perceptual structures
3) That perceptual forms are data

Is that incoherent dribble? I didn't think so either.

yes!

light transmits patterns? these patterns are coherent perceptual structures/forms?
perceptual forms are data?

the language you use is not clear.. if you're trying to say that light transmits data, that is not novel...aside from biology using light to detect its environment, we use it everyday in fiberoptic transmissions of audio and video. in one case the processor is our brain, in the other case, its a cpu.

in the case of a cpu, we are using math to count the number of operations that occur when a string of photons interacts with a sensor. in biology, the processing involves a chemical reaction between photons of different wavelengths and proteins. your idea of how light is math or math is light makes no sense.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: Gannon
1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are coherent perceptual structures
3) That perceptual forms are data

Is that incoherent dribble? I didn't think so either.

Light transmits patterns? these patterns are coherent perceptual structures/forms?
perceptual forms are data?

the language you use is not clear.. if you're trying to say that light transmits data, that is not novel...

Yea but now you've admitted that patterns of light have data. To transmit something is to carry it on you. Remember the topic of this thread? Math is the study of light (and energy) as I added to it in the next post or two.

Therefore you've just admitted that light makes patterns we can study, and math is the study of patterns of light and energy.

If this is not clear, what is not clear about it?

Light and energy transmit (and store) patterns that we can measure (detect with our organs).

To measure (perceive, know) is to enumerate. To know something is not equal to something else, red is not equal to blue. So therefore our organs measure the environment calculate (create) distinctions, to be distinct then, is to be countable and be NOT EQUAL, to any other countably distinct-unit. Our eyes and ears gather information, distinct visual forms and detectable forms of energy through our eyes, ears, neurons, synapses etc. from the patterns of energy in the environment.

Therefore our organs measure (calculate) differences in the forms of energy(light, etc) in the environment. This would mean that math is actually the study of patterns of light and energy and the mental data in our minds (the data was created by the organs, by unconscious perception) create for us to study. An abstract thing that we are thinking of, actually exists as data in our minds, as a form of stored energy. Therefore an abstract concept is stored as and is in the form of stored energy.

Agree, disagree? If so explain and demonstrate how this is wrong. If you say this is not clear, you've just said it's not clear if its possible to perceive, know and store information.

If any one of you claims the definitions of the words I am using is wrong, then you are making a claim to know WHICH words and WHICH definitions are incorrect.

Then which words, and which definitions are incorrect? You claim to know that you know this. If you claim to know the words, and which definitions of them I am using are invalid, then which words, and which definitions? Otherwise you are making no intelligible claim, you are saying "I don't know which words or which defintiins are wrong, I just know you are wrong", which is of course, is not a valid claim.

 

[gururu2]

tell me why you cannot then say that math is the study of sound. or that math is the study of gravity. or that math is the study of magnetism. or that math is the study of inertia. these forces can as well be monitored to measure and predict physical properties.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

tell me why you cannot then say that math is the study of sound. or that math is the study of gravity. or that math is the study of magnetism. or that math is the study of inertia. these forces can as well be monitored to measure and predict physical properties.

I'll answer this once you answer mine, I just asked any of you the following:

If any one of you claims the definitions of the words I am using is wrong, then you are making a claim to know WHICH words and WHICH definitions are incorrect.

Then which words, and which definitions are incorrect? You claim to know that you know this. If you claim to know the words, and which definitions of them I am using are invalid, then which words, and which definitions? Otherwise you are making no intelligible claim, you are saying "I don't know which words or which defintions are wrong, I just know you are wrong", which is of course, is not a valid claim.

 

[Gannon]

When we perceive the world are we enumerating it?

When we look at the world we are gathering information about it, does that mean we are calculating and enumerating information in the environment automatically beneath our level of awareness? because our mind is making perceptible units of form that are distinct (not equal) to other perceptible units, so they are distinct from one another (i.e. red, is not green). If you don't know, that is ok. But if you are certain that we do not enumerate it, Then show which statement and what words in the statement are incorrect.

In other words, when we perceive, are our organs (eyes, etc) specifying our perceptions?

Enumerate:

# specify individually; "She enumerated the many obstacles she had encountered"; "The doctor recited the list of possible side effects of the drug"
# count: determine the number or amount of; "Can you count the books on your shelf?"; "Count your change"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Specify:

# stipulate: specify as a condition or requirement in a contract or agreement; make an express demand or provision in an agreement; "The will ...
# determine the essential quality of
# decide upon or fix definitely; "fix the variables"; "specify the parameters"
# be specific about; "Could you please specify your criticism of my paper?"
# pin down: define clearly; "I cannot narrow down the rules for this game"
# intend: design or destine; "She was intended to become the director"
# assign: select something or someone for a specific purpose; "The teacher assigned him to lead his classmates in the exercise"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Gannon
I've made the claims that:

1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are coherent perceptual structures
3) That perceptual forms are data

Is that incoherent dribble? I didn't think so either.

1) Light is a range of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can percieve. On its own, it doesn't transmit anything.
2) The only ineherent pattern of light is its electromagnetic behavior and structure. You have speed, direction, frequency, intensity, and polarization. Of those, only frequency (color) and intensity (brightness) is perceptable by humans. When light interacts with a solid and either reflects, absorbs, or absorb then re-emit the light, then we can see perceptual structure of the OBJECT, not the light. The object exists even without light.
3) Perceptual forms are NOT data. Perceptual forms can REPRESENT data. Those forms can exist without any meaning and can mean different data to different entities.

Here is something more sound below...

1) There are pattens to the attributes of light
2) Perceptual structures can be percieved my humans from interaction with light
3) Data can be of a perceptual form

 

[gururu2]

"If any one of you claims the definitions of the words I am using is wrong, then you are making a claim to know WHICH words and WHICH definitions are incorrect.
Then which words, and which definitions are incorrect? You claim to know that you know this. If you claim to know the words, and which definitions of them I am using are invalid, then which words, and which definitions? Otherwise you are making no intelligible claim, you are saying "I don't know which words or which defintions are wrong, I just know you are wrong", which is of course, is not a valid claim." -Gannon

I do not even know what definitions you are talking about. I have given you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you have a grasp of the meaning of the words you use. However, you use these words to create dribble. Read the quote. You say 'defininition' 6 times, you say 'which' 10 times.... repeating the same idea doesn't make it clearer. You can't expect others to clarify your thoughts. If you want others to take you seriously, you have to present them in a more calm and concise manner.

Read KIAmans response for example. He has provided a number of facts and ideas in a concise manner. The language makes all the difference.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
I agree, I need to make it clear, obviously it's too highly technical for people to understand that a visual pattern is equivalent to data. So I'm going to have to find a way to present it in a way that others will accept.

Maybe you should take a step back. Take a few minutes to think about what you're going to say before typing in a frenzy because you think you just found the Holy Grail of science. Then maybe we will be able to understand WTF you're talking about. It looks like maybe you've done this below, but in the future I recommend trying this first before declaring everyone else legally retarded because they can't follow your meandering thought process.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2
"If any one of you claims the definitions of the words I am using is wrong, then you are making a claim to know WHICH words and WHICH definitions are incorrect.

Then which words, and which definitions are incorrect? You claim to know that you know this. If you claim to know the words, and which definitions of them I am using are invalid, then which words, and which definitions? Otherwise you are making no intelligible claim, you are saying "I don't know which words or which defintions are wrong, I just know you are wrong", which is of course, is not a valid claim." -Gannon

I do not even know what definitions you are talking about.

I said which words or statements don't you understand? That's what I was asking you, if anyone says that "I'm not making sense" then which statements do not make sense? Otherwise you are saying "I dont know which statements don't make sense". You have to be able to tell me that otherwise I can't make clear what you need me to make clear.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Gannon
I've made the claims that:

1) Light transmits patterns
2) That these patterns are coherent perceptual structures
3) That perceptual forms are data

Is that incoherent dribble? I didn't think so either.

1) Light is a range of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can percieve. On its own, it doesn't transmit anything.

Actually it does, when I say transmit, I mean to carry, light carries energy, and apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization, or would you like to claim that it doesn't? And this is the only thing I need to answer, the rest is irrelevant. Light can interfere with itself, this means that light can encode data, and not have it lose symmetry of information. http://www.lanl.gov/news/index...me.story/story_id/1827


In theoretical physics, a photon can be considered as a mediator for any type of electromagnetic interactions, including magnetic fields and electrostatic repulsion between like charges.

For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10?19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.

The object exists even without light.

I never claimed that objects don't exist without light, I claimed that - without a nervous system (brain, neurons, the whole package) to perceive energy you can't know they exist. Big difference.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
I agree, I need to make it clear, obviously it's too highly technical for people to understand that a visual pattern is equivalent to data. So I'm going to have to find a way to present it in a way that others will accept.

Maybe you should take a step back. Take a few minutes to think about what you're going to say before typing in a frenzy because you think you just found the Holy Grail of science. Then maybe we will be able to understand WTF you're talking about.

This is why I asked you what sentences or words don't you understand? You must be able to understand what it is you can't make sense of, and then tell me what you don't understand. Else I can't explain what you want me to make clear.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is why I asked you what sentences or words don't you understand? You must be able to understand what it is you can't make sense of, and then tell me what you don't understand. Else I can't explain what you want me to make clear.

I couldn't tell you because everything you said was in such abstruse language as to make it unparsable by someone as simple as myself. A little advice: if you want your ideas to gain traction, you'll have to present them in a way that is simple and easily understood. Think before you write and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gannon
This is why I asked you what sentences or words don't you understand? You must be able to understand what it is you can't make sense of, and then tell me what you don't understand. Else I can't explain what you want me to make clear.

I couldn't tell you because everything you said was in such abstruse language as to make it unparsable by someone as simple as myself. A little advice: if you want your ideas to gain traction, you'll have to present them in a way that is simple and easily understood. Think before you write and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.

Just so the audience knows what that very abstruse word is:

Abstruse 1. difficult to comprehend or understand;

Ok so you've said that you can't understand (therefore grasp) what I'm saying, therefore you can't make a claim that I don't understand (because you've said you can't grasp it). Which was in fact what I was saying, all along... "I said you are not GRASPING what I am saying", and it wasn't meant as an insult, it was apparently the truth as you have now admitted.

In this thread you made the claim the statements I made were wrong, this means you understood which statements weres wrong, or you didn't.

Now you just said: "During this thread, I have not understood a word you have spoken (the claims you have made)"

Then why the heck did you reply and make a claim that you understood (the claim I was making), and understood where in the claim I was wrong? I guess what we're talking about is REALLY HIGHLY TECHNICAL (highly abstract).

And I apologize for being irate, it seems that people are oscillating back and forth between saying "I understand what you are saying" and "I don't understand". Which means everyone can't even decide for themselves if they even understand what I have said.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Gannon

1) Actually it does, when I say transmit, I mean to carry, light carries energy, and apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization
2)Light can interfere with itself, this means that light can encode data, and not have it lose symmetry of information.
3)In theoretical physics, a photon can be considered as a mediator for any type of electromagnetic interactions, including magnetic fields and electrostatic repulsion between like charges.
4)I never claimed that objects don't exist without light, I claimed that - without a nervous system (brain, neurons, the whole package) to perceive energy you can't know they exist.

1) photons do not have mass. they are energy. pure energy. there is no 'they carry this' or 'they carry that'. when you say light carries energy, its nonsense. its like saying energy carries energy or light carries light.

2) this statement makes no sense. its incoherent. what do you mean light can interfere with itself? provide an example. the link you showed demonstrates no such thing. the only thing that dampens or interferes with light are physical objects containing mass. light has no mass remember.

3)magnetic fields have nothing to do with photons. nor do electrostatic interactions. magnetic and electrostatic forces are mediated by electrons.
4)totally incorrect. organisms down to the single cellular level are capable of sensing energies such as heat, radiation, and yes even visible light. obviously these organisms do not have nervous systems.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

1) photons do not have mass. they are energy. pure energy. there is no 'they carry this' or 'they carry that'. when you say light carries energy, its nonsense. its like saying energy carries energy or light carries light.

Actually photons have no mass *you can detect*. Just because we say photons have no mass (and lets admit this, mass is very abstract), we don't know that for certain. In fact the nature of light is one of the big questions in physics right now.

2) this statement makes no sense. its incoherent. what do you mean light can interfere with itself? provide an example.

Oh really? here it is...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...bleslitdiffraction.png

Is that an interference pattern?

Actually it does, I asked a physicist this very question, or is he wrong and is that picture wrong also?

The rest of what you have said is totally irrelevant

 

[gururu2]

belligerence and science don't mix. at least not once you start truly understanding things.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2
belligerence and science don't mix. at least not once you start truly understanding things.

I have just showed you light interferes with itself. You should really understand what it is you're know and understand what I have said before you claim I don't understand.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: gururu2
belligerence and science don't mix. at least not once you start truly understanding things.

I have just showed you light interferes with itself. You should really understand what it is you're saying before you claim I don't understand.

read this thoroughly ok?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

the absorption and loss of photons from a stream occurs when the light encounters a screen. screen as in physical object.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

the absorption and loss of photons from a stream occurs when the light encounters a screen. screen as in physical object.

But we're not talking about that, we're talking about whether or not light interferes with itself. I've already asked physicists these questions, you aren't saying anything.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

2) this statement makes no sense. its incoherent. what do you mean light can interfere with itself? provide an example. the link you showed demonstrates no such thing.

Actually IT DOES, a physicist is the one who pointed me to the article when I asked him whether or not we could encode data in light.

You just don't understand the article.[/quote]

 

[gururu2]

have your physicist friend paraphrase your original post. post it here.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2

4)totally incorrect. organisms down to the single cellular level are capable of sensing energies such as heat, radiation, and yes even visible light. obviously these organisms do not have nervous systems.

Actually they do, just in a different way. Otherwise they would not be organisms.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: gururu2
have your physicist friend paraphrase your original post. post it here.

So you don't understand the article, then why did you say you did? and claim "it didn't show it". jesus christ.