There are no negatives in hat problems, there are only smaller or larger numbers than any given number, plus a first number, and a last number of it's a finite hat problem. Numbers are considered to be players, who dont know what colour of hat they're wearing. Ordinarily, the conditions state either that a player can see all hats (other than their own) or only all hats in the positive direction, seeing all hats in the negative direction is another way of stating the algorithmic induction problem.

I can dig that idea. Here's the paradox for me. Consciousness as a product of biology, and biology as a product of consciousness. I feel like its a moebius strip. What is concept? Could computers have what we refer to "consciousness"?

Yes, this is a paradox.

If one is to buy the package labeled "Biology is a Product of Consciousness," wouldn't one have to by the whole package, that everything (even hard sciences and mathematics) is the product of consciousness, and take the leap to some form of Hyper-Solipsism, where not only is there no brain in a vat, there is no vat. Nor is there even a brain, for that matter. But if there is no brain, what is the agent of consciousness?

At this level even Solipsism would seem to fall apart as there would be no self that could be known or experienced, only a great nothingness (or no thingness, as some Eastern philosophies like to say) which gives rise to the myriad things.

Is consciousness something that has arisen from nothingness then?

This, I think, is where the real mind-bender of the Tao comes into play when it says (and the phrasing may vary depending on your translation, but the idea is the same), "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao." I wonder if this could be extended to say, "nor is the Tao that can be pondered the Tao."

Each answer seems to give rise to more questions, and each answer is immediately suspect and of marginal, if any, use at all.

A Moebius strip is just a fox chasing its own tail, the very definition of insanity: that of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Perhaps this is why some traditions advocate and teach methods to silence all internal dialog and obliterate the ego and simultaneously all concepts of dualism.

All this said, I would not suggest that I believe any of the above random ramblings.

They're just thoughts that occur to me now and then.

There are other beliefs that are much easier to maintain, and I suspect I've taken your original post way off topic and/or completely missed the point.

Cheers,
The Consciousness known as TickTockMan

Hey does the "di" in dimension mean "two"? I guess that would be bimension but maybe the Latin "dis" (apart) traces back through some round about way to the Greek duad. Online Etymology dictionary doesn't seem to support my claim but I don't care. Words like dissect and divide similar to dimension perhaps.

A trimension or quadrimension or ... would be redundant as they could be just as well and more clearly outlined in terms of dimensions. Did someone say this already?

I bet you're right. Sounds likely.

monomension?

You lose your bet: Online Etymology Dictionary

Oh but wait I just thought of something. Buckminster Fullers geometry

That Cartesian way of dividing up things also assumes right angles and perpindicularity. I remember Fuller thought this was a big mistake and rather than dividing space in terms of squares and cubes and hypercubes and...etc. we should be thinking in terms of triangles and tetrahedrons and hypertetrahedrons and...etc.

Fullers point is that squares can be divided into triangles so triangles are more basic. We should not be thinking in terms of rectalinear grids but in term of (what's the word) 60-degree-a-linear frameworks.

You lose your bet: Online Etymology Dictionary

a Latin prefix meaning "apart," "asunder," "away," "utterly," or having a privative, negative, or reversing force ( see de-, un-2 ); used freely, esp. with these latter senses, as an English formative: disability; disaffirm; disbar; disbelief; discontent; dishearten; dislike; disown.


Use dis- in a Sentence

See images of dis-

Search dis- on the Web

Also, di-.

Origin:

I've heard a bit about that. Even if its better, are we still going to intuit dimensions as bidirectional? I've read something about quaternians (which I think are unrelated), but I don't know if they are an exception. Probably not.

Unified quantity can only vary within a dimension.

I win!

note the Greek at the end!

Dis- | Define Dis- at Dictionary.com

---------- Post added 04-20-2010 at 02:28 AM ----------



Shoot, I'm not sure about the quaternions or how it gets to the "quat" which I assume means "4" but suffice to say complex numbers are very powerful. Weirdness of a mension or a few mensions sort of folded up in the square root of -1 perhaps? Gosh but I'm just throwing imaginary darts in the dark.

Regarding the "biderectionality" of Fullers "dimensions".

Hmmm...well...lets we think about the point, the monomension, as the starting point. We are sitting at the point and at this point we can decide how many "mensions" we are going to expand into. And by expanding into I mean developing a latice that incorporates more mensions.

If we decide upon two mensions i.e "dimension" then it will be bidirectional or didirectional, if you will, or rather just plain "directional" (taking account of the fact that Latin "dis" is already hiding in the word "directional")

Okay okay...if we decide upon 3 mensions then we will have trimensions that we can think about trirectionally; if 4 then quadmensions, quadrectionally.

But shucks, we have that Latin "rectus" following us like a spy for the government, pretending not to have an agenda, infiltrating our meetings and spreading its subliminal propaganda. Not sure what to do about rectus. What makes a right angle "right"?

But maybe this is just fun with words words words? No, I think it's worth thinking about a little at least. Yet, at some point we may have to bow to convention, so long as we don't mistaken such conventions for a meaningful traditions? No! If we were really going to break things down and believe in what we are doing we would have to break the language down as well since we are conscious of the etymological baggage that comes with the words we are using.


One last thing to remember, in the most general sense, mensions (measures) need not be spatial nor temporal.

Is each mension a quality within which quantity can be measured? Spatially that quality might be rightness or leftness, upness or downness but it can also be other qualities...but only quantifiable quantities.

. Are there qualities that defy quantification? Is something lost in quantification?

..So many different qualities to measure eventually we will develop shortcuts that will become ambiguous and our geometry will devolve or evolve into a more or less naive, more or less arbitrary, language like English for example.

Let's play with this idea. THat reality is a moebius strip. Well, then the actual mobius strip when contemplated would be Realities self-consciousness.

I played around with the Moebius strip, tinkered with a few parts, and damned if it didn't turn into Ouroboros.

When e dies it becomes a piece of pi.

A circle is a logarithmic spiral with a zero growth grate. When e dies it becomes a piece of pi.

What's the equation for a spiral? I mean the one that includes e.

Spira mirabilis, Latin for "miraculous spiral", is another name for the logarithmic spiral. Although this curve had already been named by other mathematicians, the specific name ("miraculous" or "marvelous" spiral) was given to this curve by Jacob Bernoulli, because he was fascinated by one of its unique mathematical properties: the size of the spiral increases but its shape is unaltered with each successive curve, a property known as self-similarity. Possibly as a result of this unique property, the spira mirabilis has evolved in nature, appearing in certain growing forms such as nautilus shells and sunflower heads. Jakob Bernoulli wanted such a spiral engraved on his headstone along with the phrase "Eadem mutata resurgo" ("Although changed, I shall arise the same."), but, by error, an Archimedean spiral was placed there instead.[2][3]

r = ae^(b*theta)

b would represent the growth rate. if b = 0, then e ^(b*theta) = 1.

and this would leave us with r = a, which is a circle with the radius of a.

A Moebius strip is just a fox chasing its own tail, the very definition of insanity: that of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

theta = ln(r/a)/b

If b= 0 then theta is undefined? But I think this is probably unimportant.

Addendum to my above post: YouTube - 12 leaf hexaflexagon