Large and Small

I was looking at Brownian motion and ideal gas. On the average the ideal gas law works to predict action. It is much like many physical systems which have been reduced to simple equations in the large. E=IR, PV=nRT, A=G·ME/r2 and others represent an approximation model. It is interesting how the ideal gas law decomposes as it reaches a limit like Brownian and finally at the EkT of an individual atom, there is a complete new behavior and if T°K → 0°K there are other forces that predominate. And beyond that at high G the structure breaks down to the neutron and finally to a type of matter that has never been seen or created. It seems to me that there would be a large absorption of a very specific large MeV energy during the collapse of a burnt out star to a neutron star.

I have become less amenable to things such as set theory as it is described. Cantor made a mistake in infinites. When I look at Russell's Paradox, I see a situation that I encounter in computers all the time. I use lists to maintain a reference internal to my program. UNIX and Firefox do something similar. I can enter about:config in the Firefox address bar and get access to that list. If they allowed access to a variable that determined whether the about:config list would be shown and it was set FALSE, it could never be unset as it influences itself. In the early days I wrote a lot of self modifying code for copy protection and obfuscation. It seems to me that when a person tries to divorce sets from the action on sets, you always have a problem. The continuum hypothesis is very disturbing to me. In that case they attempt to separate action and existence. It is always that self reference that is the mind f4r. I could just as easily make a set of the sets that are not yet created and it would include all sets, but the function that is implied is itself part of the concept and action of a set. In other words, the set is not a static entity and so is capable of self destruction in the same way as :

about:config "enableAbout_Config"="True"

I think of the above whenever I see one of those dialogs that have a check box for "never show this dialog again". I always wonder what I might do if I change my mind later.

It seems to me that this same problem is extended into other areas. By defining particle and effect as two separate things, it causes paradox to be a certain consequence at many levels. There is no way to have a set without defining it, ( except {NULL} technically, and really not even that as you wold have to execute the action empty ) and there is no way to have an acting particle field without the accompanying particle. The effect and object are one in the same.

I have made my own set theories before and I suppose I will do it again and then compare results. Just like programming, I like to own the code and make it faster, more compact, and less buggy. Then, see if it is possible to incorporate some of the techniques that are new.


Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen