Excellent reference and rebuttal, but probabilistic logic and even fuzzy math fall just a little short of what Ive been suggesting here. Please refer to my other videos. I am taking a very radical step and saying that existence itself can be regarded as indeterminate. When we do this we are really constructing the dual of mathematics itself. Math has a dual. Math is essentially deterministic in some sense and it's dual it totally nondeterministic. My subsequent video is a bit more clear on this.
@RevDevilin Sorry for the confusion, yeah it probably was for you. Anyway ... there is something which is never done in mathematics. They never, ever fiddle with existence. There is no such thing as partial existence. Yes, these rules do bend a little for fuzzy math and some other things, but not the same way I've been doing it. I have a system of reasoning which would work in place of math, and it is not math. See the video on counting, it explains the philosophy needed for this.
Probabilistic logic :D it's been done already :D but well done for trying to resolve the incompleteness theorem
Both mathematics and logic kinda the same thing are abstract and are therefore fundamentally flawed, but they are still incredibly powerful tool's, still we need better tool's
@RevDevilin The benefit of saying that existence itself is deterministic is as follows. It allows us to construct the dual of mathematics. Then, we can see quite easily that math is equivalent to it's dual which is a bit like relativity on steroids. We can use equivalence in a new and powerful way, and this explains many problems of determinacy/inceterminacy, causality, etc. But probabilistic logic is different than what I'm doing, PL is genuine mathematics and I have constructed math's dual.
I can not see what you have done by removing the law of excluded middle is in anyway different to say probabilistic/fuzzy logic ? could you elaborate ?
@TheSheepThatLookedUp the written word is a lie by nature theres no need for all that this has been KNOWN already it doesnt require some new theory its the same problem as 1 *0 it is not be 'solved', its just to be recognised as unsolvable and accepted as such. in fact it is the indicator of the existence of magic. the 13 dimension, the essence of the Word. betweeen the fact and the artifact. this has also been known, but not to the plebiscites... well now u know have fun
"truth" and "validity" are different in the deep of their nature; yet, we commonly tend to reduce one to the other. There is "something pretty human" in the depths of this atitiude.
I do have more videos on my channel, and I also have a FaceBook page which I use to solicit debate. I think I would like to remake this video with a better presentation, and more complete information. I left out some things which simply must be added.
Wow. A lot of big words pre coffee...;) Interesting concept here tho. Altho, I'm unconvinced that nothing is 100% true. I KNOW that much is semi false or 100% false but there MUST be 100% truth in the same way 2+2= 4. If u live on the indetermint side, u will not know if the truth side is true BUT if u live on the TRUTH side, you will KNOW that the false side is false.
Hans Reichenbach ... I MUST know more about him. Thank you so much for the reference. I think that these methods can be used to cause the paradoxes of physics to simply vanish as well. You see, when we embrace paradox in our tools which we use for modelling, then the paradoxes vanish from the physics lab. But when we deny paradox (implicit in our use of mathematics) then paradoxes permeate physics results.
Interesting and enjoyable video. Hans Reichenbach developed an indeterminate logic in the 1950's (or so), and he'd be proud of you. But he did allow True (or 100% probablility) and False (or 0% probability) and thus couldn't escape the Liar Paradox (I'm guessing ).
Hey conferencereport...thanks for viewing and commenting. Actually, this is not fuzzy logic. I've considered that quite a bit and I think that Lofti Zadeh should be ranked right up there with Einstein, his work is incredibly important to physics but Fuzzy Math was devised to actually be genuine mathematics. I take a different route. By taking the complement of LawOfExcludedMiddle ... we arrive at a tool which is definitely not mathematics, but is equivalent to math. Very amazing stuff.
you are awesome. keep that shit up.
type318 2 months ago
Excellent reference and rebuttal, but probabilistic logic and even fuzzy math fall just a little short of what Ive been suggesting here. Please refer to my other videos. I am taking a very radical step and saying that existence itself can be regarded as indeterminate. When we do this we are really constructing the dual of mathematics itself. Math has a dual. Math is essentially deterministic in some sense and it's dual it totally nondeterministic. My subsequent video is a bit more clear on this.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago
@HeliumXenonKrypton Arr was this for me ? link ?
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin Sorry for the confusion, yeah it probably was for you. Anyway ... there is something which is never done in mathematics. They never, ever fiddle with existence. There is no such thing as partial existence. Yes, these rules do bend a little for fuzzy math and some other things, but not the same way I've been doing it. I have a system of reasoning which would work in place of math, and it is not math. See the video on counting, it explains the philosophy needed for this.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago
Probabilistic logic :D it's been done already :D but well done for trying to resolve the incompleteness theorem
Both mathematics and logic kinda the same thing are abstract and are therefore fundamentally flawed, but they are still incredibly powerful tool's, still we need better tool's
watch?v=nrkvP53_Usc&feature=plcp&context=C340ef58UDOEgsToPDskImzQl7rFd_yRydhVMFJDCM
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin The benefit of saying that existence itself is deterministic is as follows. It allows us to construct the dual of mathematics. Then, we can see quite easily that math is equivalent to it's dual which is a bit like relativity on steroids. We can use equivalence in a new and powerful way, and this explains many problems of determinacy/inceterminacy, causality, etc. But probabilistic logic is different than what I'm doing, PL is genuine mathematics and I have constructed math's dual.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago
@HeliumXenonKrypton "genuine mathematics" ?
Google "diminishing returns in certainty"
It is as I said fundamentally flawed
I can not see what you have done by removing the law of excluded middle is in anyway different to say probabilistic/fuzzy logic ? could you elaborate ?
RevDevilin 2 months ago
The relation the two statements create is a self contained untruth.
TheSheepThatLookedUp 2 months ago
natmanprime 2 months ago
wonderful
FabledSoup 2 months ago
"truth" and "validity" are different in the deep of their nature; yet, we commonly tend to reduce one to the other. There is "something pretty human" in the depths of this atitiude.
Angemell 2 months ago
I do have more videos on my channel, and I also have a FaceBook page which I use to solicit debate. I think I would like to remake this video with a better presentation, and more complete information. I left out some things which simply must be added.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Do you have an introduction to these ideas somewhere I can read? I'm not getting this right now.
conferencereport 2 months ago
what if u wrote a true statement on the truth side and a flase statement on the false side...the truth doesn't become false.
julzabro 2 months ago
Wow. A lot of big words pre coffee...;) Interesting concept here tho. Altho, I'm unconvinced that nothing is 100% true. I KNOW that much is semi false or 100% false but there MUST be 100% truth in the same way 2+2= 4. If u live on the indetermint side, u will not know if the truth side is true BUT if u live on the TRUTH side, you will KNOW that the false side is false.
julzabro 2 months ago
No statement can be true :P
whyabadi 2 months ago
Great vid.
Professoranton 2 months ago
Hans Reichenbach ... I MUST know more about him. Thank you so much for the reference. I think that these methods can be used to cause the paradoxes of physics to simply vanish as well. You see, when we embrace paradox in our tools which we use for modelling, then the paradoxes vanish from the physics lab. But when we deny paradox (implicit in our use of mathematics) then paradoxes permeate physics results.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago
Interesting and enjoyable video. Hans Reichenbach developed an indeterminate logic in the 1950's (or so), and he'd be proud of you. But he did allow True (or 100% probablility) and False (or 0% probability) and thus couldn't escape the Liar Paradox (I'm guessing ).
ProfessorHansen 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Hey conferencereport...thanks for viewing and commenting. Actually, this is not fuzzy logic. I've considered that quite a bit and I think that Lofti Zadeh should be ranked right up there with Einstein, his work is incredibly important to physics but Fuzzy Math was devised to actually be genuine mathematics. I take a different route. By taking the complement of LawOfExcludedMiddle ... we arrive at a tool which is definitely not mathematics, but is equivalent to math. Very amazing stuff.
HeliumXenonKrypton 2 months ago
Are you deploying a version of fuzzy logic here? Good stuff.
conferencereport 2 months ago