Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but I am of a like-mind to him. What I have discerned, is an important insight that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you point out, make things mightily more complicated.
There is level of complication that has been with us all the time, but which we have smoothly or inadvertantly 'chosen' to ignore; because it is too intimate within standard functions and operations to be immediately noticed. EVERY integration, or differentiation; or multiplication or division of a non-scalar factor ... changes the dimensionality of a relational equation. This, by default, changes the rank of the corresponding Cantorian matrices. No statistical evaluation stands alone as if borne full grown. It exits -within- a mathematical landscape of adjacent and extended functionFORMS that are the rest of the pre-integrations, pre-differentiations, pre-multiplicands, pre-dividands ... that "surround" it in 'mathematical space'. And it, in and of itself, represents a part of the 'mathematical environment' for any and all of those .. 'others'. The beautiful simplicity is that -every- change of dimensional specification, CONVERTS mathematical statements, IN COMPARISON TO THOSE MATH-ENVIRONMENT COMPANIONS. If, for example, a base function was qualia deterministic, the conversion reveals the function product to be qualia statistical. And even more 'confusing', as it were, is the concept that we can take a base datum group, assign it an 'identity', change the dimensionality as described above, and end up, not with an 'alternative function/identity', but with the Base Datum Identity -- SEEN as if looking at it through alternate lenses and windows. IT 'stays' the same; we 'appreciate' -- different relational aspects that are there all the time but unrecognized because the mathematic-statements are out lenses of focus. Choose a different mathematical lens (like choosing a different wavelength of energy) and you 'see' something different. Intrinsic to all observables -and- mathematic-forms, are BOTH deterministic -and- statistical relations. They CONVERT. They CONSERVE. Even through the change of qualia. They REVEAL ... different relations when seem through options math-viewers. Quite fascinating. :-) Jamie April 3, 2007 > Jamie, > wise words, but no cigar here. For a "RE-Evaluation" I have > insufficient knowledge even in the "E" - to compare it into a "RE-". > Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being > just a 'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical > fraction of the totality within boundaries of our capabilities to > observe) because so far nobody (incl our computers) had the mental > power to exercise statistics upon the infinite totality - which > would be trivial anyway. Stathis is wise to concentrate on THIS > (our?) universe in his Stathistical considerations, as he mentioned. > If we include the multiverse (any definition) into statistics it would > produce inadvertently infinites compared to infinites and it would > require a Georg Cantor to find out how to compare all those infinites. > The sophisticated 'statistical' and 'probabilistic' math is fine, it > is a good mental game, but all is originated in limited patterns for > the comparison. > > > Change the boundaries of your model (selection) and both the > statistical figures and the (arbitrary? so called:) probabilities > will change.(Useful though they are in building our technology). > You need a vacation from the mathematical brainwashing to agree. > I feel, you have it. > > John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
