Mathematics is not genius.

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:11 pm

Internet seems to be saturated with pea brains. I consider "smart" people to be pea-brains. It's like, if I post that Love and Lust are feminine, I will be swarmed by pea-brains telling me how stupid I am and the "facts" about horny men are masculine, and I will be banned in 1 day because I am a "troll". Free speech is generally not allowed on the Internet these days. Its a community of retards empowering each other.

Mathematics is not genius. Why do we Not communicate to other beings using mathematics? Because mathematics is only relavent to a small portion of our consciousness. Why do most philosophy books, even books by Einstein and mathematicians, contain more words than numbers? ? Because mathematics is only relevent to a small portion of our consciousness. Why is not the English dictionary not full of equations instead of words? Mathematics is a specialized function for a singular purpose, a Detour of reality in order to attempt to create a more precise instrument, this allures to Speciliazed Persons. Genius is not specialization but broadization, although I am not perfect at any one craft, over time I get more and more better and perfecting each one of my crrafts, this is the beauty part of it, climbing the hill and evolving is as fun as resting at the top, like a sewing business that eventually expands into all manner of universal exports.

I am only intermediate at mathematics, yet I make advanced computer programs. Programmers require logic and reason as the primary mechanism, mathematics as a secondary mechanism. Got straight A's in geometry, never took calculus and wasn't ever that great at it. Genius is an overall quality of mind not a compartmentalized function of it. It's like, if I get shot in the head and the bullet only goes half-way, I will suck at mathematics, but still have superior thoughts and still be an overseer and make sure projects have the right direction. I went to a church full of Mathematicians, if you are brilliant math whiz but have a childish understanding of the Holy Bible you are not a genius. I consider myself to be the smartest person who ever lived and I will explain why. First of all I would like to say that psychopath and narcissists are false terms made by simple people with minds to small to accept things outside of their comfort zone, as Lex Luthor would say. As David Quinn would say, why would you help a man who refuses to grow some intelligence and keeps making fatal mistakes, sometimes it is better just let him either perish or get wise. Some would call me a psychopath because I don't see how nightmares are a bad thing, all are simply chemical experiences of emotions. I view modern morality as stunted, hysterical and innacurate. I don't respect psychopaths on TV, who are interviewed on TV by the Sensationals, who exhibit pride over killing their brother for no reason. It's like having pride over being a malfunctioning degenerate and uselesss organism. And I don't respect the word respect, which again is a word created by false people. Death is not evil, the only Absolute evil is absolute pain, for instance stabbing myself in the foot is not evil because the pain is not absolute. Killing someone and sending them to hell for 100 years would be evil, because the pain is approaching absolute. Life seems to be a miracle and makes me lean towards spirituality, the miracle is that, in general terms, life is usually not pain, yet the odds would be 50/50, for all we know we culd have been randomly born into lives with the sensation of being lit on fire 24/7, yet although babies cry 24/7, babies do not obtain sentience until after their crying phase. Therefore it is implied that life is not a random process of 50/50, but a Fictitious world governmened by a mastermind of qualia.

The understanding of the Bible is childish and there is a certain way our intelligence operates on a certain level which is the Unworded level. There is a certain 7th sense of implied information in the Bible, carried through generations possibly put there by the authors, potentially being Master Psychics who intentionally put it their to shield the books contents to all but the worthy. I could be wrong, perhaps the bible was made by simpletons with no special meaning. But even the word "God" is not understood at a deeper level, the word God is braincoded into our DNA to have some special 7th sense meaning, When it could just be a casual name of an Alien who created our procedural generated world. During the Eden story he appears to be a mortal and appears to be not omnipotent.
I consider myself to be the smartest person who ever lived because my theories of the universe are better than Hawking. I am so utterly dissatisfied with the science community. Take for instance, Pangea. Their map of Pangea is wrong, and doesn't make sense due to the laws of Physics. The laws of a Physics imply a symetry upon creation of Round planetary bodies. How would Earth have all high land on one side, then the rest of it flooded with Water? Makes no logic, also it would have lopsided orbit COM problems. The alternate, rational explanation to Pangea would be that Earth used to be smaller, that is why all of the land fits together like puzzle pieces, and over time due to heat of the core it expanded.

The truth of fluidity. The laws of physics behave as fluids. Even magnetism, behaves as a vortex in a bathtub. The archer's paradox is not a paradox, there is nothing paradoxial about it. There is a tendency for the scientist community to make unfitting names, and lables, and ostracize anyone who doesn't use their retarding terminology.

To be the smartest person who ever lived you must fulfill these simple requirements.

1. Make 5 or more advanced level computer programs, games, or simulations.

2. Recognize that you know nothing, while simulataneously, that you know everything.

3. See the truth of fluidity. Rigid minds tend to be inclined to Rigid Refutals of Fluid Physics.

4. Not be dictated by word land OR 7th sense land, merely conscious of it. Not focus on the words, but the content of the speaker's mind.

5. Logic and reason 24/7, to the point of other's calling it innappropriate.

6. Talk a lot, like Pinkie pie.

7. Recognize the need for the DNA machine and Reincarnation Equation.

8. Be open minded.

9. Appreciate higher aesthetics.

10. See the deeper truths of gender.

11. Recognize the futility and nihilism of life, while also recognizing the possibility that Life is utterly scripted and godly.

12. Recognize the lack of free will, while also recognizing the possibility of superpositions and incomprehensible illogics such as free will actually existing.

13. Be politically incorrect and liberated from herding techniques and dogmas, even Causality dogmas (as You could be the prime cause.)

14. Recognize what a Lie is, a Reference to nothing other than itself. A Truth is a double reference, First it enters the Prime Brain region, Nanoseconds later it is embedded in the Memory Region, our consciousness has the inherent capacity for Simulatenous Double Awareness thus the sense of it is an inherent sense.

So, to reiterate, something that is true, Enters the Prime Brain region, while simultaneously being in the Memory Region. Thus, in this context, the term A=A, Equals, which is an outdated and innacurate term. Equals being a sensory emotion of completeness. Equals actually refering to the term "Reassembles", as Memory is subtly different than the current stimulus thus 99% true. Mathematics context, is the real of True Equals, True A=A and 100%.

A lie, exists only in the Memory or the Secondary Region. Since the Past is not a lie, there is an implied timelessness enforced by the preponderance and patterns, physics, and inertia. We say Pigs flying is a Lie, but Pigs Flying in Airplanes is not, thus your ability to tell Truth from lie is decided by your minds capacity to gulp physics code, ancient persons believed airplanes were a lie because their mind had no capacity of understanding physics, just as moderns believe UFOS are automatically impossible because their mind only has a loose understanding of physics.

15. Realize that love is a disease, and Strength is the highest virtues. Love is the prime cause of most evil, most evil and rage caused by jealousy and hunger. Love causes Delusion and susceptibility to pain (including physical delusions of "pain.") It also triggers a catalyst and susceptibility to 7th sense engulfing (into the modern program). Furthermore, Love is a demotivator, decreases creativity and drive to Secede From Society. Love is a weakness. If I see a sick, pathetic animal dying on the street, Nursing it back to health does not require love or emotions. Alternatively, if I shoot it in the head and eat it for dinner it would make me less evil than someone who eats a cow locked in a cage and butchered at a farm. Which brings me to 16.

16. Recognize the outdated, innacurate, and hysterical common morality.

17. Embody, emit and engulf the 7th sense qualities of a genius.

18. Use words to inform, rather than to convulde.

19. Recognize that there can be multiple Smartest Persons in the World, as each smartest person may have certain abilities and traits, and peak at different moments compared to the other. Thus, there may be multiple Best games ever, due to various moods and tastes peaking and fluctuating.

20. Recognize that good is a quality not a quantity. What I mean by this is, the quality of emotion is based on it’s quality. Quality may include it’s quantity, however Quantity alone is not the factor. So if for example, someone says to me that one gender’s feelings are positive and one gender’s feelings are hell, they would be Liars. Because There are quantities and degrees of Masculinity which is heaven, and there are quantity and degrees of Feminity which is heaven, and quantity and degrees which are hell. This is all based on the theoretical Frequency chart of hormones and chemicals, in terms of Audio vibrations. It would be ridiculous to say that low vibrations are evil and high vibrations are good...there are certain ranges of low vibrations which are good, certain ranges of low vibrations which are evil, others make the C note, which is neutral and it’s goodness determined in context. Just as there are certain modes and fluctuations of estrogen which feels good, others which do not.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:07 pm

All that for a fallacious argument?!?

Math allows " you ". " me ". " us" "them "

Without math , we couldn't even speak
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6748
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Void_X_Zero » Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Math is a language. You can use it to identify, speak about, and know certain things that without it would be difficult or impossible to see, speak about or know. Right now math is a language that likes to use numbers as its "words" but eventually it will keep developing to the point of using geometries as words more so than numbers. A "number" is either a simple quantitative counting, or a way of representing a geometry.

Look at Pi for example: 3.1415... is only "irrational" because our number system cannot perfectly represent the geometry of a circle. There is no such thing as Pi "itself", Pi just (badly) represents something else.
"Primitive mentality differs from the civilized chiefly in that the conscious mind is far less developed in scope and intensity. Functions such as thinking, willing, etc. are not yet differentiated...this shows itself in the circumstance that the primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear. The primitive cannot assert that he thinks; it is rather that "something thinks in him." The spontaneity of the act of thinking does not lie causally, in his conscious mind, but in his unconscious. Moreover, he is incapable of any conscious effort of will; he must put himself into the "mood of willing", or let himself be put---hence his rites d'entree et de sortie." --Carl Jung

MAGA
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: terra intermedia

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:21 pm

Ecmandu wrote:All that for a fallacious argument?!?

Math allows " you ". " me ". " us" "them "

Without math , we couldn't even speak


You are confusing pronouns for equations.

Pronouns are taught by English profs. not mathematicians.

The fallacious argument is yours.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:25 pm

Wyld wrote:Math is a language. You can use it to identify, speak about, and know certain things that without it would be difficult or impossible to see, speak about or know. Right now math is a language that likes to use numbers as its "words" but eventually it will keep developing to the point of using geometries as words more so than numbers. A "number" is either a simple quantitative counting, or a way of representing a geometry.

Look at Pi for example: 3.1415... is only "irrational" because our number system cannot perfectly represent the geometry of a circle. There is no such thing as Pi "itself", Pi just (badly) represents something else.


A math is simplification and codification of behavoir and phenomenon. The behavoir and phenomenon is that which it is.

You cannot describe a Cliff using mathematics without taking 5 years to plot the XYZ value of each molecule.

A procedural program to recreate a similar cliff, would take 5 months, But it would be assisted by Logic and Reason. Programs use Logic. Mathematics alone would not be enough.

Describing geometry, is what words do, not math. Ie. Cliff, underpass, over, under, behind, in front. And they do a poor work of it.

Blueprints are artforms depicting geometry. Mathematics are injected into the blueprints to label spatial exactitudes and weight tensor properties.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby IrvaLoona » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:20 pm

Every language is the math. Movie 'Arrival' proves it =)
User avatar
IrvaLoona
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:48 am

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby -1- » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:58 pm

Wyld wrote:Look at Pi for example: 3.1415... is only "irrational" because our number system cannot perfectly represent the geometry of a circle. There is no such thing as Pi "itself", Pi just (badly) represents something else.


Pi is irrational because it can't be expressed as a ratio between two integers.

If you were right, the E would be a shape, and so would square root of ten be. Not to mention an infinite number of other irrational numbers.
-1-
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Void_X_Zero » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:01 pm

-1- wrote:
Wyld wrote:Look at Pi for example: 3.1415... is only "irrational" because our number system cannot perfectly represent the geometry of a circle. There is no such thing as Pi "itself", Pi just (badly) represents something else.


Pi is irrational because it can't be expressed as a ratio between two integers.

If you were right, the E would be a shape, and so would square root of ten be. Not to mention an infinite number of other irrational numbers.


That is correct. What do you think a 'square root' is? It is a geometric structure. Squaring and rooting is moving up and down in geometric dimensions.

Same with 'e'. It is the value which prescribes an exact geometric space, in this case, an area of 1, under the logarithmic curve. What do you think a "log" is? Just another geometric shift, similar to rooting.

Take another example, the golden ratio: the exact value whereby shifting up one geometric dimension creates an added space of exactly 1. You will notice that these geometric transformations are centered around preserving 1 exactly, and at whatever value this happens to take place will, when converted away from geometry and into numbers, produce something "irrational".
"Primitive mentality differs from the civilized chiefly in that the conscious mind is far less developed in scope and intensity. Functions such as thinking, willing, etc. are not yet differentiated...this shows itself in the circumstance that the primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear. The primitive cannot assert that he thinks; it is rather that "something thinks in him." The spontaneity of the act of thinking does not lie causally, in his conscious mind, but in his unconscious. Moreover, he is incapable of any conscious effort of will; he must put himself into the "mood of willing", or let himself be put---hence his rites d'entree et de sortie." --Carl Jung

MAGA
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: terra intermedia

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby -1- » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:20 pm

Wyld wrote:
That is correct. What do you think a 'square root' is? It is a geometric structure. Squaring and rooting is moving up and down in geometric dimensions.

Same with 'e'. It is the value which prescribes an exact geometric space, in this case, an area of 1, under the logarithmic curve. What do you think a "log" is? Just another geometric shift, similar to rooting.

Take another example, the golden ratio: the exact value whereby shifting up one geometric dimension creates an added space of exactly 1. You will notice that these geometric transformations are centered around preserving 1 exactly, and at whatever value this happens to take place will, when converted away from geometry and into numbers, produce something "irrational".

You/re absolutely right. For instance, the square root of four is an irrational number, because it is derived from a geometric shape which the human mind, if I read you right, can't rationalize. Square root of nine, ditto. Square root of 100, again, irrational.

Duh. How could I have been so stupid. Oh, I get it how; I'm a human.
-1-
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby -1- » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:21 pm

IrvaLoona wrote:Every language is the math. Movie 'Arrival' proves it =)


Is that a train movie? Or an airport movie? "Arrival and Departure times."
-1-
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Void_X_Zero » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:05 am

-1- wrote:
Wyld wrote:
That is correct. What do you think a 'square root' is? It is a geometric structure. Squaring and rooting is moving up and down in geometric dimensions.

Same with 'e'. It is the value which prescribes an exact geometric space, in this case, an area of 1, under the logarithmic curve. What do you think a "log" is? Just another geometric shift, similar to rooting.

Take another example, the golden ratio: the exact value whereby shifting up one geometric dimension creates an added space of exactly 1. You will notice that these geometric transformations are centered around preserving 1 exactly, and at whatever value this happens to take place will, when converted away from geometry and into numbers, produce something "irrational".

You/re absolutely right. For instance, the square root of four is an irrational number, because it is derived from a geometric shape which the human mind, if I read you right, can't rationalize. Square root of nine, ditto. Square root of 100, again, irrational.

Duh. How could I have been so stupid. Oh, I get it how; I'm a human.


I never said, nor implied, that every square root had to be irrational.

Take 2^2=4 as an example. "4" means something relative to what 2 means. In this case, a perfect ratio. You will always get perfect ratios when you square upward.

When you go up a dimension you are moving from linear to planar, or planar to cubic, etc; this means you are creating a new space that is larger than the original, and also the new space has units which do not correspond to the units out of which it was made. In other words, imagine a square with 2 side lengths, and area of 4. The "2" of the line is in a particular unit, and the "4" of the square is also in a particular unit, but those units are not the same. Technically the 2 and the 4 here are different sort of numbers, which you can see when you work through real-world equations that require you to manipulate units as well as the numerical values.

And to the point of the new space being larger, this is what happens when you square upward. When you root downward you are contracting space. Now, it is perfectly possible to contract or expand any space at all, but the result you get isn't always going to be perfectly divisible into your original values. An irrational number is what happens when the space that results from your transformation, either up or down, is not divisible as a perfect ratio in the terms of the original space you started with.

This tends to happen when the shape of the space involves curves. A logarithmic curve, or a circle, e and pi respectively, prescribe spaces that are curved, which means that when you take that area and "root" downward to try and find what number it is that, when squared, produces that curved space you are not going to get a perfect "rational" number. Why? Because squaring any number produces a square area, not a circular one. That is what "squared" means.

You cannot create a circle's area perfectly by squaring something, because a circle cannot be produced when you form a square, out of anything at all. But if the area you want to find is itself amenable to being a square, such as "100", then of course you can easily get there by squaring a side length.

Again, the point is that the result of your operation (squaring or rooting, for example) bears some relation to the original value you started with. There is a ratio there. That is literally what it means to say that a number is rational. But when you start with a curved space, you can't use a square operation to try and produce a perfect ratio as a result, because... square peg, round hole.
"Primitive mentality differs from the civilized chiefly in that the conscious mind is far less developed in scope and intensity. Functions such as thinking, willing, etc. are not yet differentiated...this shows itself in the circumstance that the primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear. The primitive cannot assert that he thinks; it is rather that "something thinks in him." The spontaneity of the act of thinking does not lie causally, in his conscious mind, but in his unconscious. Moreover, he is incapable of any conscious effort of will; he must put himself into the "mood of willing", or let himself be put---hence his rites d'entree et de sortie." --Carl Jung

MAGA
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: terra intermedia

Re: Mathematics is not genius.

Postby Void_X_Zero » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:12 am

Let's say you take square root of 100. You get 10.

But what if the "100" is the area of a circle? Let's say we have a circle that has an area of 100 exactly. What does this mean?

A number is just a relative value, it has no intrinsic meaning. So we need to ask, "100 of what?" Maybe 100 meters squared. Or inches squared. Or miles squared.

Are you seeing it yet? Every possible unit we choose is measured in units squared. It is a square.

So how do you get a circular area in units of squares? You don't, at least not perfectly. But you can approximate it. This is just like how you find the area under a curve, you need to use calculus which pushes the division of the area into an infinite number of infinitely small vertical area-segments. And you might say "well we can have one small circle of area 10, and a larger circle of area 100, and then we can say that the smaller circle ^2 is perfectly equal to the larger circle". Yes that is the case, but again you aren't squaring the circle, you are squaring a number that has already been defined by you as being in units of squares.

Our numbers do not have "units circled". Or, "units sphered". We have units squared, cubed, etc. This is the real issue here. Our numbers are talking about units as straight lines, not as curves.
"Primitive mentality differs from the civilized chiefly in that the conscious mind is far less developed in scope and intensity. Functions such as thinking, willing, etc. are not yet differentiated...this shows itself in the circumstance that the primitive does not think consciously, but that thoughts appear. The primitive cannot assert that he thinks; it is rather that "something thinks in him." The spontaneity of the act of thinking does not lie causally, in his conscious mind, but in his unconscious. Moreover, he is incapable of any conscious effort of will; he must put himself into the "mood of willing", or let himself be put---hence his rites d'entree et de sortie." --Carl Jung

MAGA
User avatar
Void_X_Zero
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: terra intermedia


Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users