FmAm

Proving you can't have a rock in your hand

Recommended Posts

To have a (one) rock in your hand means that there has to be number one (integer). Without certain axioms (which are assumptions in mathematics, based on seeing "a rock", for example) we are left with bare number line. Now, imagine you have to find two points on the line, number 1 and pi. At first you try to search for pi, but it escapes you (infinitesimal). Pi is an endless number so you can't find it. Then you try to find number 1. But it is the same kind of a point! There is no difference between 1 and pi. Number 1 escapes towards infinitesimal. All that is left is infinitesimal and infinity. Infinity and emptiness. One equals infinity equals n.

 

So you can not have a rock in your hand. All you have there is infinity and nothing. ;)

Edited by FmAm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and that's why I always keep 2 rocks in my hand.

One for reserve, the other for existential mathematicians.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

< Throws a one rock at FmAw > 'Donk!"

 

" Oh yeah ! What was that then ! "

 

Grasshopper;

 

You forgot, one rock is; 'one in this world' . The 'real' world. Your 'bare number line' one , shifted us to the 'ideal world'.

 

- cheater !

 

< picks up another one rock ... takes aim ... >

 

PS. Since these are not really rocks at all, and cant exist then I am not breaking any rules about violence or ...... devil.png

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this , if I take it further ?

 

2 cant really exist either ( 'by itself' ) . Duality cant exist either, for us. The only way it can 'exist' for us , aside from the fact that we are 'in' it, is that we have to be there to experience it, which creates 3, the observer.

 

Yeah, thats all still 'ideal' , I know. All we have to do now is figure out how we get that 'up' off the piece of paper (or 'out of the screen') ?

 

<,pulls it up and out >

 

Aha! It looks like a ..... lump ..... a one rock ...

 

< looks really closely >

 

... that is made up of innumerable 'other' little 'one' things that aren't actually there ...

 

 

fballref.gif ..... now Nungali has switched dimensions by going sub-atomic .... foul !

 

 

( yeah ... I know .... but it's misty, rainy and leechy out there today ... gotta amuse myself somehow )

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine you throw a rock at a bottle. The bottle breaks. Then, you go and see the pieces of glass on the ground and say "I threw a rock. It broke a bottle." If you say something like that, your words are not pointing to the reality, to this world. Because there are just the pieces of glass on the ground. And to be precise, there are no pieces of glass. But that applies only to the reality. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number doesnt apply to the world because there are no independently existing things--neither rocks, nor hands, nor consciousnesses. Each thing contains all other things. A rock is made up of all non-rock elements, which is what makes it a rock. And the elements of all those elements are fundamentally empty.

 

8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine you throw a rock at a bottle. The bottle breaks. Then, you go and see the pieces of glass on the ground and say "I threw a rock. It broke a bottle." If you say something like that, your words are not pointing to the reality, to this world. Because there are just the pieces of glass on the ground. And to be precise, there are no pieces of glass. But that applies only to the reality. o.O

 

The spoken words applies to a consensual pragmatic reality.

The intellectual theorizations that describe reality beyond the pragmatism of human experience cannot be used -by definition- to norm the way reality is perceived by human beings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To have a (one) rock in your hand means that there has to be number one (integer). Without certain axioms (which are assumptions in mathematics, based on seeing "a rock", for example) we are left with bare number line. Now, imagine you have to find two points on the line, number 1 and pi. At first you try to search for pi, but it escapes you (infinitesimal). Pi is an endless number so you can't find it. Then you try to find number 1. But it is the same kind of a point! There is no difference between 1 and pi. Number 1 escapes towards infinitesimal. All that is left is infinitesimal and infinity. Infinity and emptiness. One equals infinity equals n.

 

So you can not have a rock in your hand. All you have there is infinity and nothing. ;)

 

Shall there be a test?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The spoken words applies to a consensual pragmatic reality.

The intellectual theorizations that describe reality beyond the pragmatism of human experience cannot be used -by definition- to norm the way reality is perceived by human beings.

I agree. And if I use words to describe reality beyond pragmatism, I don't. And it's really not my fault if "I do". :)

 

(Actually I wasn't describing reality, I just tried to demonstrate that mathematics, The Language, points to nonsense and to the world beyond concepts.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great example of how the intellect is not always useful in our daily lives.

 

 

nB1pxMO.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is a great example of how the intellect is not always useful in our daily lives.

 

 

nB1pxMO.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is a great example of how the intellect is not always useful in our daily lives.

Not always useful. But it can be a lot of fun now and then. But not always.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conceptually, "whole" numbers and "real" numbers are very different.

 

For instance, I have one child. I don't have 0.999999999999 child or 1.00000000001 children. When my I brush a breadcrumb from my shirt, it is exactly one crumb -- if it breaks into pieces, it breaks into a whole number of crumbs -- there is no concept of "half a crumb."

 

On the other hand, if I attempt to measure something with imaginary "infinite precision" (odd that using "real" numbers automatically throws us into an imaginary realm, isn't it?), it necessarily creates the paradox FmAm is describing.

 

The key, however, is "precision" -- without even delving into the uncertainty principle, our ability to measure is fundamentally limited by our tools and abilities. Typically, a large portion of a physics student's second year is devoted to the concepts and details of accuracy, precision and error analysis, and the rest of his or her schooling and subsequent perception of reality should never lose that grounding.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parmenides and his student Zeno used this thinking to great effect. One cannot cross a room, Zeno would say, because you first have to cross 1/2 of it, then 1/2 of that, and so on, onto infinity.

 

The point for me is that there is a difference between how we think about the world and how the world appears. Yet time and again, we often choose our thoughts about reality rather than reality itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, even if there is a rock, you're not actually holding it. You're never actually holding or touching anything because of electron resistence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Zeno's dichotomy paradox clearly shows what happens when you apply logic void of practice. Archimedes demonstrated a mathematical solution around 200 B.C. and it became a trivial problem after Newton and Leibnitz created their little tool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like a thought made solution to a thought made problem. Which is probably why I like Nagarjuna so much...

 

Yes, Zeno's dichotomy paradox clearly shows what happens when you apply logic void of practice. Archimedes demonstrated a mathematical solution around 200 B.C. and it became a trivial problem after Newton and Leibnitz created their little tool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in a while it's good to remind oneself that all assumptions, whether "false" or "right", spring from reality and happen in reality. They are the ultimate reality themselves.

Edited by FmAm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once in a while it's good to remind oneself that all assumptions, whether "false" or "right", spring from reality and happen in reality. They are the ultimate reality themselves.

I'm assuming that you're wrong FmAm.

:)

Edited by GrandmasterP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites