cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
I do wonder though. In all of AngelRho's sophisticated BS he may have given me a certain idea and if his idea of God exists maybe this may contribute to how certain things could be possible. Even if not, I still think it is awesome.
AngelRho says that you can't have anything be and not be in the same instance. But, what if the assumption we're working on is that there is such thing as an instance and that instance is always so. What if all instances are but temporary.
Let's look at an example and let's say we have a variable that can have the values True or False. But,does this value have to be 100% true all the time or 100% false all the time.
Let's say we have the variable we will call var.
var can have either true or false. But, this presumes that it is always 100% true or 100% false. What if this variable var can be 80% true and 20% false? Or, 1% true or 99% false? Or 50% true or 50% false? Instead of being an on or off switch it becomes more of a dial like a light dimmer.
Now let's take this variable var and we rotate the dial meaning we change the values. As we increase it to be 100% true it becomes less false and vice versa.
Now, what if one could rotate this dial faster? Maybe 2 miles an hour? 10 miles? 1000 miles an hour? 10,000 miles an hour? What if it was possible to rotate to the speed of light and beyond.
And, what if we could rotate at such faster and faster speeds that we can't even tell the position of the dial and the velocity of the rotation of this dial back and forth goes faster and faster to infinity. In such a way the position could be any and all positions.
So, maybe with infinite velocity and speed maybe it could be possible to have certain things be and not be getting closer and closer to both being true at the same time as we reach infinity.
Ummm...I think you lost me there. Things being true/false simultaneously AND in the same sense violate non-contradiction. It is possible for something to simultaneously true AND false in a different sense, or things can both be true/false in the same sense but at different times.
Schroedinger’s cat is generally accepted from what I understand is a metaphorical application of non-contradiction since either the cat is alive or dead. The state of particles when not one state or the opposite is assumed to be simultaneously both AND neither state. The Man In The High Castle fictional series has an interesting take on this. The NAZIs build a quantum machine that allows travel between their world and an “alt-world.” So-called “travelers” have the ability to move between worlds without the machine, but only if the traveler doesn’t already exist in the alt-world. If you die in this world, alt-you can travel to this world. But you cannot simultaneously coexist with your alt in the same world.
I don’t give much credence to QM. The behavior of particles is interesting, but I don’t have to worry about my couch disappearing with me into another universe once I sit on it. I am convinced, however, that driers are portals through the multiverse and someone out there is wondering where the heck all these socks are coming from.
AngelRho, I'm apologize for attacking you. And, I love QM and Schroedinger’s cat. I find it fascinating.
I wonder though. This discussion has intrigued me. I want to see if it is logically possible to prove you right and myself wrong.
I think I may know the underlying assumption that I and a lot of people may have that is faulty. I believe you define a contradiction as being something that is and not is in the same instance.
AND in the same sense. That’s important. It is possible for opposites to exist simultaneously in a different sense. It is also possible for opposites to exist in the same sense but at different times.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
But, let's go into the concept of instance and take a step back. What an instance is not a solid either or but more permeable but solid enough for us to perceive it as that instance and we as humans were designed this way and existence was designed this way. I'm not sure how to explain it properly. Let's say you have a plastic bag. It looks like a plastic bag, feels like a plastic bag, and behaves and acts like a plastic bag. People would see it and use it as a normal plastic bag. But what if existence or our aspect of existence was designed for this bag to be mostly a bag that would be used as a plastic bag but what the instance we perceive is but a projection for us and maybe there are other instances that this plastic bag is something else altogether.
QM is above my pay grade, tbh. I think good arguments fall apart once you start fusing too many concepts.
I’ve been working on fusing the concepts of projection and serialism in music. Classic 12-tone music integrates dynamics into the tone row along multiple dimensions. The earliest creators didn’t do this consciously, but it was only logical that later composers do so. I chose to expand the row beyond the 12 chromatic pitch classes, scale the range of pitches beyond the octave (up to an octave and a half), and quantize the results to the 12-TET equivalent of the melakartas. I was working within the dimensions of pitch, timbre, and time. A 4th dimension, intensity, is controlled by an external, independent matrix. Choices as to which transformations to use in the final composition are governed by pseudorandom numbers, as is the construction of the prime rows themselves. Arbitrary rules to get more specific results can be imposed, such as creating drones or generating Euclidean rhythms, and so forth. All of this is related to my master’s thesis from nearly 20 years ago, but calculating exactly which notes to write when was something I had to do by hand since I lacked the knowledge to automate the process. Python, and really any programming language, is well-suited for creating procedural programs to fully realize such a composition in an instant. I started out with Puredata, which proved too clunky. I learned Python, which performed vastly better but not quite so well suited to real-time work over several hours. This year I gave up and reworked my script to generate MIDI files long enough to cover the expected amount of time required. I’m still not happy with it. But at least it’s more reliable. Next year when I have time, IF I have time, I may see if Ruby is any better.
Eventually what I need to happen is to take musical decisions beyond 4 dimensions because my current MO is too limiting. N-dimensional matrices are perfect for what I want to do. I’m leaning towards E8 Lattice theory as a way of projecting into 4D vector space with the matrix shaping how both events at the beginning of a piece AND end inform the probability of either happening at all. Higher levels beyond the 4th dimension might be influenced by game theory. I’m thinking something like I Ching. And since this involves so many layers or dimensions, it makes sense to let machine learning models handle all the grunt work. The multi-dimensional model of music creation best explains in procedural terms why we get so much pleasant-sounding music and how music designed around primitive processes such as classic 12-tone tend to be so unpleasant and even harsh. The irony is that the inventor of 12-tone serialism believed that this was the music of the future. Clearly not, and this is an example of how Occam’s Razor can sometimes be defeated. Best explanations are always the simplest if trying to solve a problem; reality is complexity.
I’m not an expert in math, physics, or computer programming. I have successfully leveraged Python math to generate wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld synthesizer. I’ve successfully used the math to plot dynamics curves to do what early serialists couldn’t: transition from one intensity to another. Serial music tends to be kinda “blocky.” So I know how to use things like logistic functions even if I don’t completely understand them. If I ever get to the point that I can integrate the physics and the data science to generate music
intelligently, I’ll go back to school and write my dissertation on it.
For the moment I enjoy teaching teenagers, and I have plenty to do to keep myself sharp.
But to get back to your point about the bag, there’s actually a simpler explanation. Serialism in music results in some pretty awful stuff that mainly interests people with no taste in music and mathematicians. Yes, I’m somewhat exaggerating and being sarcastic. The question we often get asked is “why not just write the music you want?” It’s the obvious question. The answer isn’t relevant, but here it is, anyway: Music creation takes a lot of time and creative effort. If I “just wrote it,” I’d be limited to spending on average 8 hours for every minute of music written. But if I basically follow the same creative process in making music, I could produce YEARS’ worth of music in the space of a week assuming I had a computer and server working together continuously. It’s an impressive amount of power. Here’s my point: Is music any less music if it is created through a projected simulation? Is the result perceivably different in non-aesthetic terms? That last question is important because musical aesthetics can be created or imitated at will regardless of whether a human or computer generates it. It absolutely DOES NOT MATTER because human beings are capable of making things sound “mathy” or mechanical if they want to, and beginning composers often write blocky-sounding music. It’s a matter of lacking fluency in a particular musical language, and that just comes with practice and experience. So if it doesn’t matter if music is simulated or “real” (i.e. written by a human), music is still music. And your plastic bag, EVEN IF it is only a projection of a virtual plastic bag from n-dimensional vector space, is still a plastic bag. HOW it exists is irrelevant to the fact that it EXISTS at all.
I have no problem with the idea that our world MIGHT be a simulation. I think a simulated world might actually explain quite a few things. As to whether this world actually IS a simulation, well...again, that’s beyond my area of expertise. If it IS, does it make any difference?
cubedemon6073 wrote:
But here is my idea:
So, how can God create something which is both is and both isn't.
It’s not that difficult. You can do this yourself. Get some Legos. Now, you are going to create something and you’re going to name it “Fred.” Right now Fred doesn’t exist except in your mind. Now take your Legos and put them together however you like. Meet Fred! Fred previously did not exist EXCEPT in your imagination and your intention to create Fred. The NON-existence of Fred is only in your memory, so in your mind Fred simultaneously exists and does not exist. Now, in reality, Fred either exists or he doesn’t. He did not exist outside your mind BEFORE you created him. Therefore, Fred has both existed AND NOT existed. What’s relevant is that Fred did not exist and not exist AT THE SAME TIME.
Now, suppose you smash Fred with a hammer. What Fred WAS is gone. Fred only continues to exist in the sense that Fred’s REMAINS exist. So Fred DOES simultaneously exist and NOT exist, but his simultaneous existence and non-existence is understood through a different sense of what it means to exist or not exist. You can take this a step further and put Fred back together. The new Fred won’t be the same as the old Fred, but he’s still Fred (law of identity, A=A) and the same principle still applies. New Fred shows attributes of simultaneous existence/non-existence AND neither_existence/nor_non-existence since Fred’s states of being are 4-polar.
I think that is Biblically supported. In the Psalms, David wrote that God knew him before he was born. NT writers refer to converts as new creations. Jesus displayed different behavior after the resurrection—not a ghost, but supernatural actions that were ghost-like. Human beings existed in God’s mind prior to creation, so we pre-existed before our realization—simultaneously existing and NON-existing. We existed first as an idea, didn’t exist as material beings, DO exist, and will exist as spirit beings after we cease material existence, and will be resurrected as physical beings at some point in the future. Perfected existence requires the cessation of a previous existence exclusively as spirit beings. Existence as exclusively spirit beings requires the cessation of existence as both. Existence at all means the cessation of existing ONLY in God’s mind.
Also, if you envision time as a plane in 2D spacetime (ignore other dimensions for now), your existence AND non-existence stretches across the entire plane. At some point in the time dimension, you were not born yet, and further down you no longer exist. Across the space dimension you exist at certain points and not in others. So in the sense that one’s existence across spacetime is inconsistent from point to point. Taken as a WHOLE, you both exist and do NOT exist, and simultaneously you neither exist nor NOT exist.
What’s relevant here is that this does not constitute a contradiction because you are looking at spacetime at the quantum level versus spacetime at the macroscopic level. At any given POINT in spacetime, something either exists or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t exist at one point in space, it may exist at another point. It cannot simultaneously exist at both points. But just because it exists at one point in space and not the other does not mean it doesn’t exist at all. However, something can exist in two places at once at different times. It can also simultaneously exist and not exist (it didn’t exist before; it exists now).
To summarize:
A = a spacetime Cartesian plane
B = a point on plane A
C = a different point on plane A
Fred = a mortal, human being.
At time point 1, Fred hasn’t been born yet.
Time point 2, Fred has been born, but is neither at B nor C.
Time point 3, Fred is at B.
Time point 4, Fred is at C.
Time point 5, Fred is still alive, but neither at B nor C.
Time point 6, Fred is dead.
1. When we start, there is no Fred.
2. Fred exists, but not at B or C. He still exists, just not there. Because he exists at that point in time simultaneously at Not_B AND Not_C, that means BOTH Not_B AND Not_C happen to be one and the same even though they aren’t NECESSARILY the same...we could call that point D if we wanted.
3. Fred exists simultaneously at B AND Not_C; simultaneously Fred does not exist at Not_B AND C.
4. Opposite of 3.
5. Same as 2, but different point in time and POSSIBLY a different point in space as well. Reminder: think of this as a Cartesian plane.
6. Fred does not exist.
So within plane A, Fred both exists and doesn’t exist, Fred is at B and Not_B, Fred is at C and Not_C, Fred is at B and C, Fred is at Not_B and Not_C, Fred is alive and dead, Fred is neither alive nor dead—and that only covers slightly more than half the possibilities.
This doesn’t violate the law of contradiction because when you look specifically at when AND where Fred exists, Fred cannot occupy different spaces at the same time and still be Fred. He CAN occupy one space at one time or multiple spaces at DIFFERENT times. The sum of everything that happens in segments of spacetime is not within this particular scope of non-contradiction.
Of course, the universe at least appears to be n-dimensional and not as nice and neat as a Cartesian plane. There ARE other possibilities well beyond my limited grasp of these concepts. But the non-contradiction principle does not change in relation to logic because non-contradiction is more specific than that. If Fred seems to be in two different places at once, look again because you have missed something.
cubedemon6073 wrote:
05 Jun 2021, 12:53 pm
