Benefit and belief

[DevPlayer]

On Oct 17, 10:34 am, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700, DevPlayer wrote:
> > As has been said for example does 1+1 = 2. Only in one small
> > persepective. Whaa? what wack job says stuff like that? 1+1 = 10. In the
> > bigger picture there is more then one numberic base besides decimal,
> > such as binary.
>
> That is no more deep and meaningful than the fact that while some people
> say "one plus one equals two", others say "eins und eins gleich zwei",
> some say "un et un fait deux" and some say "один и один дает два".
> Regardless of whether you write two, zwei, два, δυο, 2 (in decimal), 10
> (in binary), II (in Roman numerals) or even {0,1} using set theory
> notation, the number remains the same, only the symbol we use to label it
> is different.
>
> Do not confuse the map for the territory.
> Steven
Good point. But I disagree:

The symbol is not only used to label it. The symbol is used to put it
in context in reference to something else. "2" is a quantity in
decimal, but in binary, "2" is not a quantity nor is 01+01==10 equal
to "2" from withIN the binary perspective. Those symantics are
symbolic of concepts which are being equated to quantities OUTSIDE of
the binary perspective. True binary states, True + True does not equal
two True, correct?

Programmers use binary "math" to -represent- quantity. Here you are
arranging syntax to change meaning -out of scope-. The original
machine language notation inventors could have said in binary there is
no 1+1  they could have said "1 Jumps 1 means "A"", or "On repowers On
equals 5th gate in nand circuit".

To reitterate, I agree with you that it doesn't matter what symbology
you use if that symobology represents "same-stateness" -FROM a broader
perspective (i.e. scope). BUT in binary, in the narrow scope of binary
logic there is no "2". The available states are restrained to the
scope you place them, when WITHIN that scope. (using caps to try to be
clear and I don't intend to say you are wrong and I am right but to
say, I disagree because of this logic. Said differently I intend to
explain, not to demoralize or offend).

"1+1=10" is being viewed as 2 because of a larger world view is being
used, a broader perspective. Using broader concepts of numbers and
math which is a superset of a strictly binary system and is also a
superset of a decimal only view. Remember a computer does not function
with concepts of "2" or "a" or "15". Computers function in ons and
offs and "indeterminate" states. The binary representation of "10" to
a computer does not mean "2". That quantity representation is
something the human applies to that state.

Perhaps a differant analogy made by someone else. Many years ago, I've
studied the "The Fourth Dimension" a book based mostly on math by
Rudy Rucker. There are a few books with that name but this one is
algra based. It attempts to teach the reader to be able to view 4
dimensional objects using 3 dimensional and even 2 dimensional
translations of "mapped" objects - with a 4 dimensional view.

There are two popular schools of thought on this attempt. 1. It's
impossible or us to concieve of a 4 dimentional space objects within
our 3 dimentional senses and perceptions. and 2. We can conceive  with
our mind-s eye 4 dimensional objects much like we concieve of 2
dimentional objects (the plane) and even harder one dimensional
objects.

The author attempts to teach by first using an analogy. First he
clarifies that for his purposes of 4 dimensional space, that no
dimension axis in his math singularly represents time or anything
ephemeral like the supernatural or energy or such. Each fo the 4
dimensions represent an axis in a physical vector. He then creates a 3
dimensional man who lives in a 3 dimensional world. This 3d man sees
up, down, north, south, east, west. And he can see a plane or even a
line. But the 3d man does not see the 4th axis because he is not made
of that vector and does not therefore have sensory to perceive that
axis.  The author then goes on to show a 2d man does not see the 3rd
axis and then better explains how the 1d man can only "see" in left or
right directions. Following that story further, keeping to certain
assumptions about 1d space, puts the man in a binary world view, where
there is no "2", much like a computer. there is not "2" there is only
10, which TO YOU is a 2. but to the 1d man and the computer is a 10.

Of course when you try to limit someone's view to make a point about a
limited view it sounds rediculas. Supposition is often that way after
all.

> That is no more deep and meaningful than the fact that while some people
> say "one plus one equals two", others say "eins und eins gleich zwei",
> some say "un et un fait deux" and some say "один и один дает два".
> Regardless of whether you write two, zwei, два, δυο, 2 (in decimal), 10
> (in binary), II (in Roman numerals) or even {0,1} using set theory
> notation, the number remains the same, only the symbol we use to label it
> is different.

Also here you are talking about syntax as if it were symantics or
mnuemonics. Symbology is a superset of those three terms and they are
not entirely equivelent although -closely- knitted in function and
purpose. Context (=limited perspective) is revelent if not entirely
revelent when using symantics coupled with symbols. For example: One
man's war is a another man's liberation. Here the word symbol "war"
has different meanings for each man. The two smantics is to apply the
notion of war (fighting/killing) to the purpose of war (rebellion to
what is "good" (man1) to removal from what is "bad" (man2)).

Along with my notion of the "Duality of Nature", also puts around the
idea-almost-belief that "Everything is symantics". These two goofy
notions are tightly linked (at least in my musings).

Ever hear/read the term: "It's all good."? A reference to Karma and
how things will work out for the better in the end inspite of what you
see now... A great example of "Everything is Symantics".

Apart of that notion btw is that: No symbol completely and entirely
represents a thing, a person, a place, an idea completely and
accurately, only partially.

And symbology is very tied into "Relativity" (of perspective) (another
term I apply to "Duality of Nature" where in DoN there exists at least
two extreme but opposite states, in "Relativity" has something LIKE
extremes but they are vectors of state and not limited sets of state
with a infinite range. for example the infinite range of numbers
between 0 and 1 or 1 and 2. or for example where 0 and 1 are numeric
synbols of off state and on state - two opposite and partially
contradictory states. (Some say "None" is the opposite of a bool
state). btw for those in electronics fields know that on and off
states are mearly arbitary, chosen to be some function like 2 *square
of power for on. In electronics on off states there are infinite
levels of "on-ness" but only two points in that range are chosen to be
revelent (was that 75% power I forget).

And another weird notion to put forward. "2" as a numberic quantity by
itself is utterly meaningless. Two what? It's the "what" that is
revelent. I was going to go on to make some connection to "2" being a
representive of "instantation" of objects and the place and usage of
instances is meaningful but that chain of thought is just as windy as
all the hot air I just gushed.

Well. Hope you enjoyed my crazy. Later.