|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:28 pm
http://bestdocumentaries.blogspot.com/2007/09/dangerous-knowledge-full-documentary.html
Philosophical implications of some mathematics in this.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:51 pm
The name in the link alone has me interested. *clicks* ninja
Edit: Wow, these were not some happy people. What a shame. Sheesh, one starved themself to death? Ouch. He really did go off the deep end. And I'm kind of not surprised a guy went nuts thinking about infinity too hard. Perhaps somebody could prove me wrong, but thus far I think I've fairly well reasoned it out to myself that infinity is only a theoretical thing and could never really exist in reality. (Time is the one thing I don't have in my reasoning entirely accounted for as impossible to be infinite though.) But yes, Now that I've finished the intro, I shall watch the actual video. xp I'm curious to hear more about this "mathematic proof that there would always be problems which were outside human logic." Seeing that made me raise an eyebrow.
Edit again: I just finished watching. That was some real mean stuff they did to Turing. D: I'm slightly frustrated though that they never really actually said HOW/WHY any of these guys' stuff was true, just that supposedly it IS. Bah! It's time for me to go to sleep and then I have work to get done today, but when I next get the chance I'll try to get myself to look up in the plainest English I can the reasoning behind these conclusions. I can't really say much for the philosophical implications of them until I am more certain of the soundness of their conclusions' bases'. However, for the moment, I'm curious as to why the second guy who spoke of physics and atoms and probability didn't get connected to the other three as much. Because might that not actually be where the answer to the other three guys' problems is, at least for part of it? Suppose part of the problem is the transition between thinking theoretically and then comparing it to actuality. Perhaps infinity works as a concept, but there is a point where you have the smallest possible unit of space. This would mean a circle could not have infinite sides is all. It only has a WHOLE lot of them so it appears infinite and such a thing as a real "circle" doesn't exist. It is all just points which are merely perceived as if they had an endlessly going closer and closer connection of parts in a curve. Along with that if there was some small (no matter how small, it could still be enough to mess things up at some point if looked at very hardly) chance of atoms kind of "messing up" some times (I'll call it a "mess up for now," possible other freak low occurrence rate laws coming in to play and being the cause is all could be there, but especially not having looked up more on these people yet I really can't say much on that) in reality that wasn't being factored in rightly to their theoretical equations which were then compared to reality and shown to not be matching up all the time that could possibly be throwing people for a loop. Anyway, more once I get done looking at those I suppose. Did Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis (I believe that was what they said it was, but it was at the beginning and I'm forgetting now as I'm sleepy) ever get finally completely officially confirmed or denied?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
