Changing color. Turing. Von Neumann. Automata. Thinking. Tautologies.

Advertisements

e9c13035a7206c8a21699c22281fc25d

Skin colour patterns in animals arise from microscopic interactions among coloured cells that obey equations discovered by the mathematician Alan Turing. Researchers at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics reported in the journal Nature that a southwestern European lizard slowly acquires its intricate adult skin colour by changing the colour of individual skin scales using an esoteric computational system invented in 1948 by another mathematician: John von Neumann.

The researchers, followed individual lizards during 4 years of their development from hatchlings crawling out of the egg to fully mature animals. For multiple time points, they reconstructed the geometry and colour of the network of scales by using a very high resolution robotic system.

Continue reading “Changing color. Turing. Von Neumann. Automata. Thinking. Tautologies.”

Intuitionism (Constructivism) vs. Logicism vs. Platonism.

Advertisements

Does infinity exist?

Is the whole larger than the parts?

Are all the numbers either negative, positive or zero?

Phenomenally simple questions. With no definite answer!

Is everything “out there” for us to discover? (Platonism)

Is everything we can “write on paper” true? (Logicism)

Or only the things we can construct do exist? (Intuitionism/ Constructivism)

For every truth, there has been a debate. For every given axiom, there has been a completely different and opposite one. For every solution, there has been a controversy lost in the depths of time.

Search for the obvious.

Ask the “easy” questions.

Be careful of what we “know”.

It is usually the cloak of what we do not.

Counting as an animal: Do you still think Math is our greatest achievement? Ask the chicken. (and then eat it)

Advertisements

Studies show the origin of the ability to understand the notion of numbers is something we share with the animals.

It is true that many nonhuman animals can manage almost-math without numbers. Reports of a quantity-related ability come from chickens, horses, dogs, honeybees, spiders, salamanders, guppies, chimps, macaques, bears, lions, carrion crows and many more. And nonverbal number sensing, studies now suggest, allows much fancier operations than just pointing to the computer screen that shows more dots.

All this could mean that animals all inherited rudiments of quantification smarts from a shared ancestor. (1)

Counting as an animal ability. This is what mathematics is all about. We have just made the system more… elaborate so that it seems advanced. But essentially we still count. As simple as that. And we just like to show the same tautologies over and over again in different ways so as to… count. We may believe that mathematics is an extremely advanced conquest of our civilization, but it is just as the same as a parrot learning to count beans.

Ask the chicken.

Does it feel proud for… counting?

Do not laugh.

You would seem that ridiculous when a wise man asks you why your are proud of knowing that (A + B)2 = A2 + 2AB + B2

KO KO KO KO KOOOO!!!

Stare silently.

Just… stare.

Let the chicken count.

You are not here to count.

All you are here to do is figure out why there is no need to count…

Ah. And eat the chicken.

The truth. NOT as 1+1=2… [Pythagoras, Hippasus, Silence]

Advertisements

Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests.

The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.

Dr. Tim Fawcett and Dr. Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page. (1)

Mathematics is a far too accurate tool to depict the truth.

The truth is elusive.

The truth is subjective.

The truth is mystical.

Look beyond 1+1=2…

Look beyond the equations…

The meaning of what you want to say, cannot be said with numbers. The essence of what you want to express, cannot be expressed with words. First of all we need to understand. How we express what we understand comes afterwards and is a matter of choice.

Back in the days of Pythagoras, members of an elite cast discovered that not everything can be expressed as numbers. They decided to keep the secret safe. They even murdered in order to accomplish that. They succeeded. For too many years people believed in numbers. For so long, people believed in the ability to articulate the “truth” with words and mathematical expressions.

We live in the days of quantum mechanics and consciousness research dead ends though. We are now starting to believe that perhaps not everything can be said.

Pythagoras was right about silence.

It is not just a matter of keeping secrets. It never was.

Is IS the tool which reveals truths!

Only if you stand long enough and listen to it…

Listen…

Hippasus’ silence is deafening…

Remembering rules. Math. Blind cosmos… [Against mathematical operations?!]

Advertisements

Children differ substantially in their mathematical abilities. In fact, some children cannot routinely add or subtract, even after extensive schooling. This new paper proposes that math disability arises from abnormalities in brain areas supporting procedural memory. Procedural memory is a learning and memory system that is crucial for the automation of non-conscious skills, such as driving or grammar. (1)

We learn rules.

We then learn math based on rules which we memorize.

Failure to do so makes us “bad” at math. And yet why should that be a problem? Why should we “learn rules” and memorize them? Why should we interpret or measure the cosmos based on these rules?

In a world where everything is One and non-dividable we try to learn the rules of division. In a world made out of oblivion, we try to base our civilization on remembering…

How can 1+1 even have meaning,

when One is clearly defined?