Thought experiment, don't know where else to put this.

[Quick]

Where to start...

Let's say you have a circle. This circle represents all possible outcomes (infinity). Within the circle, is another circle. What is within the inner circle represents the mean of all the possibilities (reality). That is the only thing that is within the inner circle.

This theory assumes you can only add possibilities and cannot subtract them.

Now suppose that the space in between the two circles is to be split up into different sections. Each section is a different possibility.

Now suppose that the number of possibilities are symmetrical, and the solution to explain this model must follow occam's razor.

If the possibilities are symmetrical, then the amount of different possibilities there are would be 12. Let me (try to) explain.

You would have to assume that the possibilities must be symmetrical from all angles, otherwise it would not be a pure model. This requires that you have to be using perfect numbers. Perfect numbers are ones that are prime numbers that can be represented logically and wholistically.

Let's assume that the mean of all possibilities is a 1. That is the first part.

Let's assume a perfect number isn't actually one number, but several numbers because 1 number isn't enough to contain more than 1 possibility.

Since there are multiple variables that make up what the mean of all possibilities is, the sum of all possibilities is 2 because it is a duality of 2 parts of a whole. This is the second part.

But the possibilities are compounded based on this number of 2 parts because 1 possibility for the number of all possibilities and 1 possibility for the mean of all possibilities isn't enough to explain the totality of the system since the mean of all possibilities and all possibilities are 2 different things. So you have to add another number to quantify that the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities is greater than the sum of its parts, which is 3. This is the third part.

3 is the total number of parts that we are assuming make up every possibility and the mean of all possibilities.

3 can't be the total number of possibilities just by itself because it only accounts for representing 3 parts and it excludes the duality of all possibilities, and the mean of all possibilities. So 3 doesn't satisfy the perfect symmetry of all possibilities because 3 is asymmetrical.

So the duality that should be represented by the lowest common denominator of what is symmetrical is a perfect square number. That number is 4. This is the fourth part.

But 4 doesn't satisfy the essence of the totality of the system (3) because it is limited to being static because it lacks the integrity of totality, so more possibilities must be considered.

In this way, 3 represents the totality of the system and 4 represents the pattern we can see as symmetrical. So we have to find the least common denominator of 3 and 4, which is 12. This is the fifth part.

12 works because it satisfies both the symmetry of all possibilities and the totality of the system we are using to determine what is the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities.

Some interesting things about how 12 relates to 3 and 4: if you plot 12 points in space symmetrically as a parameter in the shape of a square, if you follow from a place that connects one side to another, you get 3 points that are independent of the other points and 1 point that is a joining point between the 3 points and another set of 3 independent points and this happens 4 times. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 4 (symmetry) you get 8. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 3 (totality) you get 6. If you then put a symmetrical 8 point circumference in space parallel with a symmetrical 6 point circumference in space, you get 12 points. I say all this to say that 12 satisfies the least common denominator of a perfect unison between totality and symmetry.

OK, I spent way too much time on this model. If I made a logical error or if clarification is needed, please point it out.

[Edit]OK so I stopped a little short of the goal post. 12 doesn't satisfy the problem of perfect symmetry so you would have to make 12 a square which is 144. So 144 is the number of all possibilities for any given possibility.

 

[Quick]

How would you write this as an equation?

 

[Quick]

Need help here:

But 4 doesn't satisfy the essence of the totality of the system (3) because it is limited to being static because it lacks the integrity of totality, so more possibilities must be considered.

I want to say 4 doesn't work because it's a quantity that is only in addition to the system as a whole which would mean the pattern has to be a multiple of 3...

But now I am changing the means to get to the proper ends and I don't think that is how math should be done???

I am prolly not getting any feedback on this at all, so IDEK why I am doing this.. I don't say this to be manipulative, it's just that it shows that there is a disconnect to practicality.

 

[Quick]

OK, so here is my first crack at it.. (it's prolly going to be a right mess)

144=1+2x+3xy+4z where 3xy+4z=12

>.<

Not possible to solve I am guessing...

But what if we plug in 1 for x and 2 for y and leave z as an unknown???

That would give us:

6+4z=12
4z=6
z=1.5

I am lost at this point...

 

[mmm4444bot]

… Let's say you have a circle. This circle represents all possible outcomes …

All possible outcomes of what?

 

[JeffM]

Where to start...

Let's say you have a circle. This circle represents all possible outcomes (infinity). Within the circle, is another circle. What is within the inner circle represents the mean of all the possibilities (reality). That is the only thing that is within the inner circle.

OK. I am lost on the first paragraph. Are these circles supposed to be Venn diagrams? The possibilities are restricted to numbers, right? I mean, how do you calculate the average of an elephant, a robin, and an earthworm? Not just numbers, but an infinite number of numbers, correct? Why would a set of numbers necessarily include the the mean of those number? Why is the mean "reality"? If I have one person who is 6 feet tall and another who is 5 feet tall, does that mean I REALLY have two people who are each 5.5 feet tall?

 

[Quick]

All possible outcomes of any given situation.

@mmm444bot

 

[Quick]

OK. I am lost on the first paragraph. Are these circles supposed to be Venn diagrams? The possibilities are restricted to numbers, right? I mean, how do you calculate the average of an elephant, a robin, and an earthworm? Not just numbers, but an infinite number of numbers, correct? Why would a set of numbers necessarily include the the mean of those number? Why is the mean "reality"? If I have one person who is 6 feet tall and another who is 5 feet tall, does that mean I REALLY have two people who are each 5.5 feet tall?

No it's not a venn diagram. It's one circle and another that is smaller than the first one that is perfectly centered within the first one. You wouldn't calculate that average of an elephant, but you could do something like the average weight of an elephant. There are different possibilities for how much that elephant weighs, but there is only one reality for how much that elephant weighs.

The mean is reality because it would be like the average of all possible weights of the elephant. This theory assumes that there are a limited number of possibilities for any given situation. It's more of a model than a proof or anything like that.

[Edit]OK so I guess it could actually be a venn diagram, but it would just be one where the overlap is completely self contained and there is just either where the two share a commonality or just the first circle that represents all the possibilities.

 

[Quick]

I think this thread is either going to be very long or it is going to be cut short. The reason I think this is because I ran it by a friend of mine who has a math degree and he basically said there was a lot of stuff that I was thinking about this model that I don't really explain in enough detail. And given IDK how much of it people are going to be able to know what I am referencing, it's prolly going to be a while before people know what I am talking about enough to say whether I have made logical mis steps or not.

 

[Quick]

This picture is originally what I was thinking given there were only 12 possibilities:



But then I realized it would have to be 144 possibilities instead of 12

 

[Quick]

OK, this is extremely weird. I think I am actually on to something with this...

Look at this: https://youtu.be/w-I6XTVZXww

I was at that point basically.. I am not really sure what the relationship of -1/12 is to reality (the inner circle) because reality is a +1 and not a negative integer...

I might actually be right that for every given situation that there are 144 possibilities but only 1 reality...

The bizarre part of all this is that I don't really understand math all that well, I am basically just playing around with different things I am hearing from math documentaries that basically just give a very basic summary of what the concepts mathematicians have found to be true...

Some concepts I used are things from stuff like this: https://youtu.be/cvMlUepVgbA I watched this earlier and completely forgot about what the first guy talks about the number 12.
Then I just decided to play around with some geometric shapes. That is what lead me to this thread...

 

[mmm4444bot]

… I was at that point basically …

What point is that point?

Your posts contain a lot of unreferenced pronouns. This is one reason why your English is quite ambiguous and very incomprehensible. Instead of employing so many unreferenced pronouns, just spell them out. :cool:

… reality (the inner circle) because reality is a +1 …

If you're defining reality as a circle, you'll need to provide a cogent definition. Without explaining specifically what you're thinking, when you use the term circle (which already has its own mathematical definition) to represent some (as yet unknown to us) concept of "reality", nobody can follow your train of thought.

You say, "reality is a positive 1". Please cite a source for this statement.

… I don't really understand math all that well …

This is exactly why you are so confused!

I'm glad to see people investigate matters of deep thought, but you really ought to complete some introductory mathematics courses first.

What you're doing is tantamount to a medical student claiming that they don't have interest in studying anatomy. Instead: "I want to be a surgeon, so where's the operating room. Let's go." That's not how successful surgeons are made.

I've seen that video myself, and the fact that so many people have trouble understanding why the limit of the sum of the Natural numbers is in fact a negative number, I believe, is a testament to the fact that many people simply do not understand the concept of infinity. The human mind tends to want to limit infinity (thus, treating it as though it were a numerical quantity) because it's just easier than exerting the mental effort required to do otherwise.

I'd also like to point out that, in the first video, Tony makes a minor slip at [02:38], when he refers to the number -1/12 as a Natural number. It's not; it's a Rational Number.

 

[stapel]

This picture is originally what I was thinking given there were only 12 possibilities:

View attachment 9031

But then I realized it would have to be 144 possibilities instead of 12

Twelve (or 144) possibilities of what?

 

[Quick]

What point is that point?

Your posts contain a lot of unreferenced pronouns. This is one reason why your English is quite ambiguous and very incomprehensible. Instead of employing so many unreferenced pronouns, just spell them out. :cool:

If you're defining reality as a circle, you'll need to provide a cogent definition. Without explaining specifically what you're thinking, when you use the term circle (which already has its own mathematical definition) to represent some (as yet unknown to us) concept of "reality", nobody can follow your train of thought.

You say, "reality is a positive 1". Please cite a source for this statement.


This is exactly why you are so confused!

I'm glad to see people investigate matters of deep thought, but you really ought to complete some introductory mathematics courses first.

What you're doing is tantamount to a medical student claiming that they don't have interest in studying anatomy. Instead: "I want to be a surgeon, so where's the operating room. Let's go." That's not how successful surgeons are made.

I've seen that video myself, and the fact that so many people have trouble understanding why the limit of the sum of the Natural numbers is in fact a negative number, I believe, is a testament to the fact that many people simply do not understand the concept of infinity. The human mind tends to want to limit infinity (thus, treating it as though it were a numerical quantity) because it's just easier than exerting the mental effort required to do otherwise.

I'd also like to point out that, in the first video, Tony makes a minor slip at [02:38], when he refers to the number -1/12 as a Natural number. It's not; it's a Rational Number.

I was going to reply to this point by point, but pretty much everything you are saying is pretty much the same thing and what that is is that unless I have a knowledge of math at a high level that I really have no business experimenting with these kinds of concepts.

I know I don't actually "know" the math behind what I am talking about. But I am talking about concepts here. This is just how I learn things.

And I am not stupid actually. And I don't say this to brag or anything, but I just say it to show evidence that I am actually pretty smart.. When I took the ACT (years ago) I did extremely well on the Science and Reasoning section - better than 93% of other other test takers. What this illistraits is that I my reasoning capabilities are highly above average considering most people who take the ACT are already somewhat above average intelligence. That said, I scored below average on English and Reading, so that is why I am so hard to understand at times. On top of that, I recently had some neuropsychological testing done that said pretty much the same thing as the ACT did. And I am not saying this to say I am smarter than you at all.. IDK how smart you are so I can't make that claim, and that's not really my point either. My point is that I am a smart guy who is easy to misunderstand, but the way I learn things doesn't necessarily take a normal path.

And I DO plan on going to college to learn some of this stuff, but it's going to take a while. I mean I can basically just say "at what point is someone qualified to ask these questions and come up with ideas that explain things? First year college student? College graduate with an undergrad? With a graduate? With a PhD? With a post Doc?" You see where I am going with this I am sure.

And I realize that what I am saying here doesn't really address the specifics of your reply so let me try and address those now..

I don't really feel confused, per se, I just keep going back and forth with wondering whether there is something to what I am talking about or not.

IDK what pronouns you are having difficulty understanding so I am not sure what I should elaborate on and what I don't need to. That's why I said this thread could be a long one - because IDK what you know about what I know and IDK how specific I need to be. Like IDK where you are in your understanding of what I am talking about either, so I am not really sure where I need to start explaining what my thoughts are on these things. To put this in context, everyone knows 1+1=2, but you can write about 100 pages just to explain that 1+1=2.

I am representing a place within all possibilities that ends up being what reality actually is. It's not really the circle itself here that is important, but the concept behind the representation.

I believe to answer the question of citing that reality is a +1 is found here. Basically this states that IF you are not looking at reality, it doesn't exist, but if you are looking at it, it does exist. This assumes that something can either exist or not exist, which could be represented as something not existing as a 0 and something that does exist is a 1.

I believe I addressed the last part of your reply already.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… you are saying … that unless I have a knowledge of math at a high level that I really have no business experimenting with these kinds of concepts.

I have said nothing of the sort, my friend. :cool:

I'm speaking about successful interpersonal communication.

You do not need experience with mathematical concepts at a "high level", in order to communicate your thinking in a way that other people can follow. Successful communication requires only that you understand the basic meaning of the terminology that you're using. Introductory courses will provide this for you.

Math, and therefore, matters of science, philosophy, engineering, computer science and the like, is not very forgiving of inaccurate or nonsensical communication.

You'll be able to engage people to take part in your journeys, if you first learn to express your thoughts in a way that they can follow. I can't understand most of what you post. I don't have a lot of personal time to spend trying to decipher convoluted statements. I'm not interested in guessing, either, because that's not an enjoyable use of my limited time. I've asked you a number of questions; sometimes you answer, but I don't understand your replies, either.

It's not my intent to be pejorative. I want you to engage people; I want you to succeed in growing your brain! There is a general order to all of this. It begins in a classroom. You are free to operate outside of general order, and forge your own path. Just understand that you might be alone, in such a journey.

 

[Quick]

I have said nothing of the sort, my friend. :cool:

I'm speaking about successful interpersonal communication.

You do not need experience with mathematical concepts at a "high level", in order to communicate your thinking in a way that other people can follow. Successful communication requires only that you understand the basic meaning of the terminology that you're using. Introductory courses will provide this for you.

Math, and therefore, matters of science, philosophy, engineering, computer science and the like, is not very forgiving of inaccurate or nonsensical communication.

You'll be able to engage people to take part in your journeys, if you first learn to express your thoughts in a way that they can follow. I can't understand most of what you post. I don't have a lot of personal time to spend trying to decipher convoluted statements. I'm not interested in guessing, either, because that's not an enjoyable use of my limited time. I've asked you a number of questions; sometimes you answer, but I don't understand your replies, either.

It's not my intent to be pejorative. I want you to engage people; I want you to succeed in growing your brain! There is a general order to all of this. It begins in a classroom. You are free to operate outside of general order, and forge your own path. Just understand that you might be alone, in such a journey.

Well, thanks for not being a jerk, sorry if I came across as defensive. It's just that I have had this problem of articulating myself in a way that makes sense to people my whole life. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I don't really see this problem being resolved, so I fear I am just going to be SOL if this thread is any indication. What's I see happening is that no matter what classes I take, since I am just using what I know of things to convey my ideas, I am always going to have this problem and it's not going to resolve just by me being educated.

 

[mmm4444bot]

… What's I see happening is that no matter what classes I take, since I am just using what I know of things to convey my ideas, I am always going to have this problem and it's not going to resolve just by me being educated.

I do not agree.

Anybody can learn. All it takes is motivation and effort.

Keep practicing! Things will get better.

 

[JeffM]

There are three possibilities. (1) You have an interesting and correct idea, but do not have the skill at communicating to get other people to see the kernel of your idea. (2) You have an interesting but not yet correctly formulated idea, but do not have the skill at communicating to get other people to help you refine your idea. (3) You have a silly idea and cannot communicate because it is silly.

If you read modern philosophers, you will find that they are excellent at communicating. I doubt that you need more knowledge to formulate your ideas. I suspect that you want other people to put your ideas into words for you.

Life does not work that way. If you want me to help work on your ideas, let's work on one aspect at a time. Please tell me why the mean is a greater reality than the numbers that make up that mean. Many, indeed an infinite number of, other sets of numbers will have that same mean. That multiplicity strikes me as indicating that a mean is a simplifying distortion of reality: information is lost for the sake of simplicity of expression. I am not saying that a mean is useless. I simply do not understand why

100, 900, 1100 with mean 700 represents the same reality as

697, 700, 703 with mean 700. Off the bat, they strike me as quite different.

If you can begin to make me understand why they are exactly the same reality, I am willing to help.

 

[mmm4444bot]

All possible outcomes of any given situation.

@mmm444bot

Are you thinking about the entirety of universal data (including all data which has not yet been realized or created by humans)?

 

[Quick]

There are three possibilities. (1) You have an interesting and correct idea, but do not have the skill at communicating to get other people to see the kernel of your idea. (2) You have an interesting but not yet correctly formulated idea, but do not have the skill at communicating to get other people to help you refine your idea. (3) You have a silly idea and cannot communicate because it is silly.

If you read modern philosophers, you will find that they are excellent at communicating. I doubt that you need more knowledge to formulate your ideas. I suspect that you want other people to put your ideas into words for you.

Not exactly what I was thinking, but pretty close and you may be correct in this. I want to be able to get my ideas into numerical values, not words.

Life does not work that way. If you want me to help work on your ideas, let's work on one aspect at a time. Please tell me why the mean is a greater reality than the numbers that make up that mean. Many, indeed an infinite number of, other sets of numbers will have that same mean. That multiplicity strikes me as indicating that a mean is a simplifying distortion of reality: information is lost for the sake of simplicity of expression. I am not saying that a mean is useless. I simply do not understand why

100, 900, 1100 with mean 700 represents the same reality as

697, 700, 703 with mean 700. Off the bat, they strike me as quite different.

If you can begin to make me understand why they are exactly the same reality, I am willing to help.

OK so here is what I am thinking with your inquiry: Things always reduce to the lowest common denominator in reality. We know this because unlike in SOME math (like ones that give multiple answers for the same problem) the reality we experience is a SINGLE REALITY FOR US (that is what the mean of all possibilities is in the circle within the circle which is the equivalent of 1) and not an abstraction that has different outcomes, but that doesn't mean that it could not have happened differently. If a bird flies from one tree to another, that bird doesn't fly from one tree to another AND stays in the same tree. We only know the singular possibility, which is that the bird flew from one tree to another. But the bird COULD HAVE stayed in the same tree or flew to a different tree from the one we observed the bird flying to. But getting to you question about why these possibilities give a mean of 700, the only thing that matters TO US, since it is the reality we are looking at is the bottom line, it is that 700 is the reality we actually experience because that is the only reality we are looking at. I add this part about the only reality we are looking at, because of the link I gave that asks the question: is reality an illusion? The answer to that question in the article is that the only reality that exists is the one we are looking at. You can consider this the law of attraction or not - it could just as well be assumed that the reality we experience just so happens to have one outcome out of a possible numerous different outcomes and the reason for that is that it is the mean of all the possibilities have occured. But I bring up the possibility that there could be different possibilities for any given situation because it's important to be aware that some things cannot be predicted as far as their outcome is concerned. Knowing that there are different possibilities that could occur helps us understand that there are probabilities for how likely a situation is to occur. Then, If we know that there are a finite amount of possibilities that could occur, then we can start to use the method of probability to make our best guess as to what could occur. Given that we do know something about the patterns of the universe (this is where my idea of Symmetry come into play and how that theoretical physicist was able to graph that all the equations that we use to explain the world creates a symmetrical pattern), we can use this knowledge to use this as a fundamental universal rule to use as a guide to help account for enough possibilities so that we do not undercut the amount of possibilities possible for any given situation. With that said, there is also this other principle we can use to help limit the amount of possibilities we have to consider, which would be Occam's Razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. So then what I did was use these two concepts to create a model that gives the number of possibilities for any given situation.

I really hope you understand that, but IDK if you will or not.