XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.supp
rt.schizophrenia
From: fedora@fea.st
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 05:18:15 -0700, one wrote:
>Noah wrote:
>> one wrote:
>>> Noah wrote:
>>>> one wrote:
>>>>> Noah wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The rule of the universe is that all matter descends to total
>>>>>>disorder. Entropy must decrease.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lots of presumptions in those two statements.
>>>>
>>>>Verifiable presumptions, based on mathematics and observation.
>>>
>>>Usually, entropy increases, naturally, given: a type of system.
>>>
>>>Entropy must decrease, if.
>>
>>There can be temporary diversions, but ultimately, it must go to zero.
>
>A form of heat-death might suggest an approach to absolute zero.
>Why temperature can't reach zero is beyond me at this time.
Humans experience atomic vibration as heat. Absolute zero is where
atoms have stopped vibrating. It is possible to get very close to
this in a lab, but there will always be some vibration seeping in. The
problem is if you have an atom at absolute zero, what can you store it
is that does not provide heat?
But as Neil Tyson says, the universe is not obligated to make sense to
you.
>An impression of mine can have as a given: entropy increases.
>Entropy increases until an equilibrium is reached. Heat-loss occurs.
There is a sort of equilibrium or even a cycle right now. But in some
billions of years, the stars begin to die out, and the heat source is
gone. Then absolute zero can be reached.
>To suppose a unverse, the Universe, exists can be supposed.
>
>To say it's full of matter and energy can be to say a difference
>between matter, energy and the Universe is said to be.
Actually, they seem to be two different forms of the same thing, like
ice and water. The universe is not obligated to make sense. Why do
mass and time change as speed increases? No sense.
That does not mean we are entitled to say, there is no universe. We
can say that the universe cannot be understood from our limited finite
perspective. That does not mean there is no perspective from which it
could be understood.
>To say the Universe is energy can be a saying.
>
>Matter is energy, solidified in ways as a phase is
>shifted from and to, being divided by light-squared,
>just as energy is matter multiplied by c-squared.
>
>The Universe matters as it is matter. It's what matters.
>It's energetic as it is, pure energy. And some say there is
>the invisible matter and the invisible energy which are
>said to comprise most of what it is, said to be.
>
>Are they all the same, or different, one may wonder.
>Is ice or steam different from an ocean as a notion.
>Does the Universe contain its parts or is it 10k-things.
>
>Will it die a heat-death and its temperature approach zero
>or will it go without going, expanding and contracting.
It seems it expands but will not contract. So we think. That does
not mean that such thinkings are without merit.
>Is it not you and you not it or
>is it you and you are it, ore, refined over time.
You are something the universe is doing right now, so said somebody or
other.
>>>If order is to be maintained and chaos is to blame, then
>>>entropy must be contained, or else, all is lost.
>>>
>>>Godel might have proved, a system can't prove its own self.
>>>How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
>>
>>That's cute. Let's see if we can be a little more precise:
>>
>>First note that these are theories, not proofs.
>
>Good point. Aye.
>
>>>Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most
>>>important results in modern logic, and have deep
>>>implications for various issues. They concern the
>>>limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.
>>>The first incompleteness theorem states that in any
>>>consistent formal system F within which a certain amount
>>>of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the
>>>language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F
>>
>>1+1=2.
>>Cannot be proven for all 1's and 2's since there are infinite of them.
>>So the theory states, but it is a theory since it has not been proven.
>
>Trying to prove what is axiomatic might be fun.
>Semantics might be able to dictate, to define, what is.
>
>If 1+1+1 is the same as 3, then it is.
>The two are not different other than by degree.
>Names name and seam as they weave.
>
>One apple, one orange and one tree are three.
>The three are not other than all the ones naturally.
>Natural numbers, counting numbers, numbers exist.
>
>Once upon a time there was a Life tree which
>branced off of a Universe tree and they both gave
>without giving brave beings a chance to explore
>going where beings never went before ... .
>
>>>According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal
>>>system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent
>>>(assuming it is indeed consistent). These results have had a
>>>great impact on the philosophy of mathematics and logic.
>>>There have been attempts to apply the results also in other
>>>areas of philosophy such as the philosophy of mind, but these
>>>attempted applications are more controversial.
>>
>>>How his proof isn't a paradox could be a quibble.
>>
>>So there is no paradox or quibble, but you are being cute.
>>
>>It is interesting to note that the theories seem to work well for
>>philosophies of math and logic, but not so much for philosophy of
>>mind.
>
>I don't mind his theories nor theorems much, nor if
>on some level of speaking 1+1 can't be proven to be
>equal to 2. In the Chuang-tzu is a saying about words.
>
>When words accomplish what they are set out to do
>then they can be set aside. We have communicated,
>you and I, on various levels and a playing field is
>what can be said to have provided us a means.
>
>Mouths of the Universe might speak and eat.
>Swallowing a camel if one can imagine that.
>
>- straining out gnats ... Thanks again! Cheers!
--
Noah Sombrero
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
