Interesting and Humour - page 4867
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
In super small, super large, near zero, and beyond super large or near very much amazing)
transfinite numbers and around them too.
and paradoxes in general arise because they're not precise enough
that's been evident since Russell.
paradoxes only show imperfection of the chosen axiomatics (language, concepts) or limitation of its applicability
although some authors, like Maurice Kline, have written about the crisis of mathematics.
there is a vague uneasy feeling that mathematics being extremely precise and formal is unable to explain not only the world but even itself 😁
I really hope that's not true because it would be a phenomenal fiasco of the whole Logos.
and then we will have no choice but to trust intuition or do Chaldean theurgy 😃
I wonder how animals count their cubs?
They get very worried if even one is missing.
I wonder how animals count their cubs?
They get very worried if even one is missing.
I remember an experiment being conducted. Crows can count (up to 6-7, I think) how many people entered the hut and how many came out, and whether there is someone inside, respectively.
Also, it was reported somewhere that animals can count within the normal number of cubs of a given species.
I remember an experiment being conducted. Crows can count (up to 6-7, I think) how many people entered the hut and how many came out, and whether there is someone inside, respectively.
Also, it was reported somewhere that animals can count within the normal number of cubs of a given species.
As a kid myself I used to watch a cat get excited and start looking when I would sneak one kitten in.
I did it out of pampering, of course, but it was interesting to watch. I was about eight years old at the time.
I'll comment a bit later, but in short the paradoxBanach-Tarsky paradox refers only to pure formalization of set theory, more exactly to the way of formalization, we are not going to refuse mathematics because of it 😀 naive set theory was buried long time ago, but I agree, that probably future discoveries can open connection between pure mathematics and physics, ideally we will come to mathematical theory of universe, finite ensemble, may be even to unity, but I do not think that Solovyov and Russian cosmism model will be the only choice, the current problem as quite clearly pointed out is the inductivity of language, we have no possibility to base on the existence itself, in this sense concepts always hang a bit in vacuum, relying only on a set of postulates, or strictly formal description of the world is impossible at all 😕🙁 and it is clear that classical philosophy trying to separate itself from scholasticism ends up being just pure scholasticism itself, but philosophy is an attempt to break out of the prison of vicious circle...
P.S. By the way, amazing coincidence that the Chaldean Oracles were quoted in a sect yesterday.... I see it as some kind of sign 😃
P.P.S. the possibility of immeasurable sets is of course frightening, yes...
I just wanted to say that Zeno's aporia can only be solved by generating new aporia, all the more creepy) Hilbert said that no one would kick us out of the paradise built by Cantor, but it turns out that there is and never was any paradise) Except that we can postulate that our location is paradise)
The main problem is the impossibility to separate the ontological from the linguistic in the process of cognition. As it was with Aristotle in his Organon, so it continues to this day in the most advanced modern texts on logic and set theory. Perhaps modern analytic philosophy can somehow solve this problem, since it has stopped denying the importance of metaphysics.
I just wanted to say that Zeno's aporias can only be solved by generating new aporias, all the more creepy) Hilbert said that no one will throw us out of the paradise built by Cantor, but it turns out that there is no paradise and never was) Except that we can postulate that our location is paradise)
The main problem is the impossibility to separate the ontological from the linguistic in the process of cognition. As it was with Aristotle in his Organon, so it continues to this day in the most advanced modern texts on logic and set theory. Perhaps modern analytic philosophy can do something about this problem, since it has stopped denying the importance of metaphysics.
damn well agree
This is the second time I've seen a strange picture. I have two mugs of the same volume at home - both 450 grams. I put brew in both of them, pour boiling water on them. After 15-20 minutes, when it's brewed well, I pour sugar (the same amount in both cups), stir it, taste it. Ironically, the temperature in a ceramic mug is VITALLY LOWER THAN in a stainless steel mug. It would seem that stainless is a metal - heat transfer is higher than ceramic, the tea in it should cool down faster, but somehow it cools down faster in ceramic. That's why:
You should measure it with a thermometer and then draw conclusions. How much of a difference it will make to a tangible one)
This is the second time I've seen a strange picture. At home I have two mugs of the same volume - both 450 grams. I put brew in both of them, pour boiling water on them. After 15-20 minutes, when it's brewed well, I pour sugar (the same amount in both cups), stir it, taste it. Ironically, the temperature in a ceramic mug is VITALLY LOWER THAN in a stainless steel mug. It would seem that stainless is a metal - heat transfer is higher than ceramic, the tea in it should cool down faster, but somehow it cools down faster in ceramic. That's why:
It is the metal mug itself that burns the lips. People instinctively get used to drinking hot liquids themselves so as not to burn the most sensitive areas - the lips and larynx. Many people drink water that has just boiled over painlessly. Try holding such water in a metal mug in your hands. So this is a subjective sensation.