An equation I derived with philosophical implications

So, I do some thinking from time to time. Here's a little formula I derived that I think addresses the paradoxical nature of identity-vs.-continuous change. It's a bit philosophical, so pardon me if I bore you. Also, I'm not a mathematician, so if anyone can tell me if I screwed up my notation, you get a gold star.

First, a little background...

For some time, I've been interested in the concept of 'identity,' particularly because I am now in a graduate social work program and they beat the importance of culture and race over my head with a stick repeatedly. I wondered why it was so important for people to be 'proud' of their heritage, culture, etc. It didn't make sense to me that someone should be proud of something over which they seemingly have no control. I began to ask questions like, "If I say I am a student today, and a son the next day, and a friend the day after that, what makes me the same person?" Or, "If everything always changes, then doesn't the process of change never change?" After all, our thoughts constantly change, so do our bodies, so do the dynamics of our relationships...so how can we still be the same person from one moment to the next? I eventually came up with a simple equation that I think models the relationship between stability and change. And now, the equation:

Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)

where:
Θ = distributive property of being ('identity principle'). an identity remains constant over time and does not change.
x = conditional event. conditional events are subject to change.
Σxlim->∞ = sum of all conditional events

The equation can be read as follows: "The sum of an identifiable conditional event, x, and the sum of all identifiable conditional events minus an identifiable conditioned event, x, equals the sum of all identifiable conditional events."

For more explanation...
If I say "It is an apple," then "it is" is the identity principle and "an apple" is 'x.'
If I say "It is all possible events" then "it is" is the identity principle and "all possible events" is 'Σxlim->∞.'
I could take the original equation an say "An apple plus the sum of all conditional events minus an apple equals all conditional events."

So...back to the equation.

Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)

The interesting thing that I find about this equation is that because the identity principle distributes to each variable, it can be removed from the equation entirely such that:

x + Σxlim->∞ - x = Σxlim->∞

The implications of this are very weird to me. It seems to imply that there is a principle of being -- a property that allows things to "be" -- that is entirely separate from the things themselves. In one sense, you might almost say that the things you see such as a tree in your yard or a person walking down the street don't exist because they, being conditional, continuously change and thus are not subject to true identification -- their identity changes at every identifiable moment. But, at the same time, we say they do exist because there is some property (the identity property) linking all of these changes in an identifiable way.

I've grown fond of this equation because it offers a lighthearted view of reality in contrast to the hardened view I believe most of us are used to. This equation helps me think to myself, "Hey, bad things aren't so bad after all. They can't be this way forever!"

Meh, hope this wasn't too much rambling.

I think you went over a lot of heads in this post, mine included.

Hopefully some of the brainiacs around here will have a more meaningful contribution.

Meh, or I didn't explain it that well. Definitely a possibility.

Hmmm. There are some better scientist on the board(Kurchatovium and Purplestyle) than I but I see a few things that concern me.

Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)

Is theta(Θ) dependant on (x)? Your notation leads one to believe so....but then you use the identity principle to remove Θ which is your dependent variable.....effectively removing all of the information you sought to find.

What is (x)? I thought it was time as in Θ representing an identity say......"father" and that identity which is the dependent variable changes with respect to time the independant variable(time stops for no one). We can substitute 1 year for x to see that Θ(x)=A hands on father. At x=25 years Θ(x)= a father that's a friend. At x=90 years Θ(x)= a father that needs care. Taking the summation(Θ(Σxlim->∞)) of all identities of the father from 0 years to infinity years would be the total view of what the father's identity is...not just a snapshot like the previous example like we did where we peeked into the father's identity at 25 years. Subtracting x years from infinity years is would still yield infinity years...Adding the snapshot to the total view across time of the father's identity still results in just the father's total identity from 0 years to infinity years.

That's how I interpreted it.

I think you're trying to bridge the ever decreasing gap between neuroscience and quantum mechanics?

Oh dear. Maybe you didn't go over as many heads as I thought.
I think I need to touch-up on my math.

I'll give it another read-through; see if it clicks any buttons if I read it through again. Perhaps a bit slower this time.

GQguy said:

Hmmm. There are some better scientist on the board(Kurchatovium and Purplestyle) than I but I see a few things that concern me.

Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)

Is theta(Θ) dependant on (x)? Your notation leads one to believe so....but then you use the identity principle to remove Θ which is your dependent variable.....effectively removing all of the information you sought to find.

What is (x)? I thought it was time as in Θ representing an identity say......"father" and that identity which is the dependent variable changes with respect to time the independant variable(time stops for no one). We can substitute 1 year for x to see that Θ(x)=A hands on father. At x=25 years Θ(x)= a father that's a friend. At x=90 years Θ(x)= a father that needs care. Taking the summation(Θ(Σxlim->∞)) of all identities of the father from 0 years to infinity years would be the total view of what the father's identity is...not just a snapshot like the previous example like we did where we peeked into the father's identity at 25 years. Subtracting x years from infinity years is would still yield infinity years...Adding the snapshot to the total view across time of the father's identity still results in just the father's total identity from 0 years to infinity years.

That's how I interpreted it.

I think you're trying to bridge the ever decreasing gap between neuroscience and quantum mechanics?

Click to expand...

I was trying to address identity at its linguistic roots. Consider the sentence, "It is an apple." This is basically saying "some subject is some object." The object can only be identified by the presence of a subject. The subject always aligns with some identity..."It (subject) is." Being cannot not be ('is' is of course derived from the verb 'to be.'). Thus, being or the 'it is' is associated with the identity principle, an unchanging constant. In the equation, 'x' is simply any conditioned event that can be recognized in relation to a subject. "It is x," "It is an apple," "It is a father," "It is a 90 year old father." The Σxlim->∞ is simply the sum of all possible identifiable conditions and events. This basically covers identifiable configuration that can and ever will exist in the real universe.

Without the relationship between theta and any 'x,' we cannot identify ourselves as separate or distinct from anything else. Before "It is an apple," there simply is "It is _____" but there is not yet any relationship from which we can identify "it."

Actually, I think my equation aligns with the Greek concept of "syndiffeonesis" which basically states that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' always occupy some relational medium. Even if 'x' and 'y' are said to be "absolutely different" from each other, then they are still similar in that they are included within the medium of absolute difference. In other words, no 2 identifiable events can ever be "absolutely different" from each other, implying that all conditional events can be reduced to some common syntax.

I think my equation helps demonstrate this common syntax (theta) and shows how fundamental similarity and absolute difference are paradoxically related. For example, happiness and sadness seem to be absolute opposites, but they are both emotions. Good and bad seem to be absolute opposites, but they are both a relative description of utility. I and you appear to be different people, yet, I think on some level, we are fundamentally the same. So, in a nutshell, the equation also models the paradox between similarity and difference -- Everything IS...and is to that extent similar, but when we identify things as separate, they take on a conditional type of existence.

I know what I said is confusing. I apologize.

This seems kind of an inductive logic thing ( i could be wrong)

For example:

If
Grue is Green until 2050 and then becomes Blue after 2050
and
Bleen is Blue until 2050 and then becomes Green after 2050

One will not know until 2050 if this defintion has any merit since thats when the color change would happen. Normally Blue and Green are considered independent but this definiton would suggest that time connects them some how. One cant know till the time in question if thats indeed the case. So the obervation on 2050 needs to be made to assert that.

( ok now I am confused 😛)

Chrisums, yep. Theta is basically like the number '1' in this equation.

But looking at "the sum of all conditions = the sum of all conditions" isn't nearly as interesting as the other stuff you can throw in. The other stuff makes it more meaningful to me (keyword 'me' lol)

Kurch, lol you're making future premises?

I'd be confused too! 🙂

According to George Carlin, Bleen is a number somewhere between 6 and 7.

metalgod said:

Kurch, lol you're making future premises?

I'd be confused too! 🙂

According to George Carlin, Bleen is a number somewhere between 6 and 7.

Click to expand...

Inductive Logic can be confusing. 😛 It is the basis for most science. The argument I was giving sort of goes to what you are saying that we assume many things about our world that blue is always blue and perhaps things seemingly unconnected might be connected in some bizarre way. That is because it is for the most part in our realm of experience that simple things stay simple. Blue is blue and never turns green. However it may be that it is not the case. Inductive logic goes "well everytime I see blue it is blue therefore it will always be blue."

kurchatovium said:

Inductive Logic can be confusing. 😛 It is the basis for most science. The argument I was giving sort of goes to what you are saying that we assume many things about our world that blue is always blue and perhaps things seemingly unconnected might be connected in some bizarre way. That is because it is for the most part in our realm of experience that simple things stay simple. Blue is blue and never turns green. However it may be that it is not the case. Inductive logic goes "well everytime I see blue it is blue therefore it will always be blue."

Click to expand...

Yep, science as a method is inductive (though individual experiments are deductive because of the hypotheses to be tested). The problem with this is that you can never find absolute truth through induction; you would have to have an idea of what the truth is beforehand to know that you found it! This is also the problem with our perception. Ultimately, our perception is fallible and we can never be certain of what we see because the conclusions we form from our perceptions are inductive. Bees see grass as grey, we see it as green...who is correct? But, then we know that we can't see the vast majority of the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, so there is a lot to the grass that we do not see.

This problem with induction also led me to a little semantic argument that makes a case for faith.

If I doubt something, I do not know it -- I don't have faith in it.
"I do not have faith the Cubs will win." I do not know they will win, and thus, I doubt them.

If I have faith in something (no doubt), do I know it?
Is faith a way of knowing despite our typical belief that evidence/proof must exist to constitute knowledge?

Edit: By the way, I think semantic arguments can be perfectly valid given that reality itself can be described as linguistic (i.e. having syntax, content, and grammar).

metalgod said:

Yep, science as a method is inductive (though individual experiments are deductive because of the hypotheses to be tested). The problem with this is that you can never find absolute truth through induction; you would have to have an idea of what the truth is beforehand to know that you found it! This is also the problem with our perception. Ultimately, our perception is fallible and we can never be certain of what we see because the conclusions we form from our perceptions are inductive. Bees see grass as grey, we see it as green...who is correct? But, then we know that we can't see the vast majority of the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, so there is a lot to the grass that we do not see.

This problem with induction also led me to a little semantic argument that makes a case for faith.

If I doubt something, I do not know it -- I don't have faith in it.
"I do not have faith the Cubs will win." I do not know they will win, and thus, I doubt them.

If I have faith in something (no doubt), do I know it?
Is faith a way of knowing despite our typical belief that evidence/proof must exist to constitute knowledge?

Edit: By the way, I think semantic arguments can be perfectly valid given that reality itself can be described as linguistic (i.e. having syntax, content, and grammar).

Click to expand...

This is usually why I keep faith/emotion and science very separate. Science works great in certain things. Predicting the next solar eclipse. Figuring out the speed of a ball dropping from a certain height. Doesnt work too well on the emotional side of things like helping someone deal with grief or anger.

In a sense the Bleen and Grue thing can cripple you to the point where you question every little thing. We define our reality pretty much based on how we observe things. We assume others observe things the same as us too. So perhaps bees see grass as gray but maybe there is a person who sees grass as blue. We define him as being wrong since he is in the minority, what if he is right though and we are all wrong. At that point you could say "How can I be certain of anything? 😱". This is why its good to consider things as tools more or less. Science is a great tool for the more physical side of things and religion/faith better perhaps for the emotional side.

I agree.

Plus, logic seems to allow for apparent contradictions.

Consider, for example, the concept of 'freedom.' Can something that is free be not free? It would seem so, since any free thing would thus be free to give itself its own limitations.

I think this is important because it seems that it is possible to have simultaneous-but-contrasting definitions/configurations of reality. But, humans fundamentally understand in binary terms -- answers can either be yes or no, but not both and be understood together at the same time. Humans can't grasp their heads around "yes and no" scenarios. Imagine the famous example of a train traveling near the speed of light into a tunnel. From one perspective, the train is too big for the tunnel and hits it...from the other perspective, the train travels through the tunnel. Both are correct.

metalgod said:

I agree.

Plus, logic seems to allow for apparent contradictions.

Consider, for example, the concept of 'freedom.' Can something that is free be not free? It would seem so, since any free thing would thus be free to give itself its own limitations.

I think this is important because it seems that it is possible to have simultaneous-but-contrasting definitions/configurations of reality. But, humans fundamentally understand in binary terms -- answers can either be yes or no, but not both and be understood together at the same time. Humans can't grasp their heads around "yes and no" scenarios. Imagine the famous example of a train traveling near the speed of light into a tunnel. From one perspective, the train is too big for the tunnel and hits it...from the other perspective, the train travels through the tunnel. Both are correct.

Click to expand...

Very true. There are and always will be contradictions in logic. What is amazing is its at the edges of these paradoxes where science really happens.

The paradox of the speed of light travel creates the Theory Of Relativity.

The paradox of the wave like nature of matter creates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and much of Quantum Mechanics.

Science happens at the edges and it changes our perceptions of what is real and how our world operates. Now some scientists think there could be Alternate Universes. Maybe 11 dimesnions. Perhaps time itself is only an illusion and time itself may disintegrate according to some newer theories. Suddenly maybe Grue and Bleen dont seem so weird. LOL

What does it all mean then? I think it boils down to communication and discussion. Hey Joe does that sky still look blue? 😛 Fred is your watch going backwards? 😛 As long as we all talk and discuss we can come to reasonable definitions of what to do in the world as it exists. That world may and likely will change but I think we can always work our way through whatever pops up.

You've raped the meaning of mathematics.

Congratulations.

I'm going to go cry now.

On a less douchebaggy note, don't try to combine mathematics with philosophy. It just doesn't work that way.

socktickler86 said:

You've raped the meaning of mathematics.

Congratulations.

I'm going to go cry now.

On a less douchebaggy note, don't try to combine mathematics with philosophy. It just doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

I agree in this case. The two can be used together....but only when they speak both languages fluently.

GQguy said:

I agree in this case. The two can be used together....but only when they speak both languages fluently.

Click to expand...

Which the OP does not. It's words and a few meaningless symbols. Throw in an equal sign and people think they've done math. That's not how it works.

The symbols are mainly what confused me.

Why can't we just use A, B, and C? Q.Q

Bothersome said:

The symbols are mainly what confused me.

Why can't we just use A, B, and C? Q.Q

Click to expand...

Using 1,2, and 3 would a lot simpler.

At least, that's what I've been told.

@Sock. Mathematics is a branch of philosophy....

Bothersome said:

The symbols are mainly what confused me.

Why can't we just use A, B, and C? Q.Q

Click to expand...

I used theta because letters typically denote variables instead of constants. That's why I used 'x' for conditional events because that is the variable while identity is a constant.

metalgod said:

@Sock. Mathematics is a branch of philosophy....

Click to expand...

Yes yes, we all played that wikipedia game.

Actually, I think I'm going to play it again.

On a more serious note, no. Take it from a guy who knows a hell of a lot more mathematics than your average joe tickle.

!!! SCIENCE !!!

..old scientist dudes rule...

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3fI8834iCgo?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3fI8834iCgo?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

One of the best mathematicians I ever met was the same guy who taught the philosophy classes I took. He had shoulder length hair and never wore any shoes but I learned a lot from him. About philosophy, science, math and life in general. Never judge a book by its cover and always keep your mind open.

Sure you can mix philosophy and math. As a matter of fact, I've been thinking for quite some time that they parallel each other, in that, typically, research in either field involves taking principles and properties and carrying them through steps of logic, causation, and so forth, in a very abstract mode, to see what conclusions they yield. But, being as my most recent math class was Calculus 1, which I took in 1981 and got a C in, I'm lost when I read your syllogism. I'd certainly be interested in seeing how it translates into practical applications written in layperson's terms.

If your social work training is anything like some of the stuff I've been through, then at least some of what they're saying about race can be taken with a grain of salt. Speaking from the ivory towers, I can say that academics have a way of essentializing race and reifying ethnic pride in ways that have much less meaning outside the ivory towers than inside it. If social work is anything like education, you'll be dealing with situations out in the field that don't have the remotest resemblance to what your social theorists in the classroom say.