Math Is Fun Forum

Hi Bob,

thanks for you reply, let me comment on some of your phrases, which grabbed my attention, and you can guide me according to your view on these, so that I fully get your thinking.

I would put it as, in mathematical modelling axioms seem to exist, which commonly make sense to people other than the model's originator.

The ability of humans to make sense of what seems to be happening around them, is not unique in humans, other animals do so as well, but humans seem to be the only ones in this planet using their senses commonly with written language, meaning that they can write things down, and what is written down can be common sense to many others.

When words in some order make sense to humans regardless of their background, time or place, then this is usually what humans call common sense, for example:

A dog defecating on the street is probably an unpleasant site, if you are not the dog's owner, and even then things don't look all that bright for the viewer, but most people wouldn't say that what makes sense for the dog is to go to a toilet and make sure it doesn't make a mess, as it is a dog, and most people get that.

A human defecating on the street however, is a completely different story and most humans get that, some humans don't get that, and there are also the one who like to pretend that they don't get that, and what in the end applies commonly for humans, is what humans commonly get (pretty straightforward argument if you ask me, but I may be wrong in my thinking).

The barber shave himself once and after that commits suicide, is what seems to be happening here to me, and that was all the story about this magical barber...

If this theorem cannot be proved, then it doesn't make sense to humans to write that theorem down, or it doesn't make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, because...

otherwise if this theorem cannot be proved, then it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, but...

if in the end this theorem cannot be proved, and it does make sense to humans to write that theorem down, and it does make sense to keep it written down as it is unchanged, it doesn't seem to me that what humans write down ends up making sense to them, nor that that making sense was their intention of writing that theorem down.

As a physicist, this is what seems to me to be happening:
1) Humans have a current theory of physics, which describes what seems to be happening to some degree.
2) A new theory is proposed, which described what seems to be happening to a degree closer to reality, and usually can be simplified to the old theory (the old theory wasn't untrue, it was close enough to reality, but now something closer is proposed).
3) Experiments have to be done, in order to verify that the new theory seems to be happening in reality.

Humans are not imagining stuff, and stuff happens around them.
Stuff happens around humans, and humans can imagine how that is.
And what seems to be happening in the end is something else than anything a human can imagine, even though any human can say it.

if you make a theory with unprovable theorems, you don't have to worry about a lot, as you are already are not making much sense, it seems to me.
If you are trying to make sense however, what you theorize about, has to be common sense for others, and the way this is common sense for others, is their proof, not yours in the end.
What I mean is  I welcome any input, however I didn't decide to spend my time and effort writing here, so that I prove something to myself, I am doing so as I cannot disprove to me what I wrote, and what I wrote is pretty simply written for anyone who wants to discuss that exactly, it seems to me.

(and arguments of the type, Godel's language is too advanced for the common mind, is too advanced for the common minds in this forum)

What is the difference between "fun" and "quest" for you?
If one man lives with a "quest" for dominance and stability (of their own life), could the same man live without fun?
And if that man lives with  a "quest" for dominance and stability (of their own life), a life that in the end is not fun, aren't the words dominance and stability in the end lies that man told himself, and nothing else?
Why would anyone tell himself such lies? Because he wasn't funny, and he chose to define life with more pronounced words. The words that exist in language are enough, and within those words the ones most commonly used, are the ones that define what we humans call "common sense".

And this is what my "common sense" tells me:

Humans need to feel good. Why? For the simple reason and no other that otherwise they would feel bad, and in the end they would damage themselves (this is why bad feels bad, so that you try to avoid feeling this way).
And what about the in between? In between is  all the fun, some people manage to keep their lives feeling good, and it doesn't necessarily has to do with any "quests" they have, some don't, and it has everything to do with the "quests" they have (because their "quests" are in their heads, but fun happens on every part of yourself, emotion is not localized in you brain).

"Also, you must give evidence for whatever beliefs you put forth. It is not up to us to come up with evidence to justify your claims."
Most people think that fun is trivial and they have more serious things to do, and this is where we are.
And my argument is, oh do they?
How about they write to us what more fun is there in life, than just fun? Or do I need to provide evidence to you that there is nothing more fun in life, than just fun?

(If you are having thoughts, then how does one has a fun life, the answer is easy, you find it with patience. Why? Because you need patience to have fun. Why? Because you find how to do this out in a funny way.
Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, sometimes it is less fun than what you can handle at that moment in life, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun. )

Hi Agnishom,

I agree with your comments, as like you wrote, this is an inductive argument (when I initially wrote this I had "sorta proof" instead of "proof", but I thought in the end it weakened the argument, as I needed more words to explain why I would write "sorta proof").
But since it makes some sense to someone let me explain myself a bit further with this argument, to get another's person's perspective. Also just to warn you from the beginning the below is a bit far fetched .

I use the following simple model to describe myself. Generally, I can:
1. feel, which ranges from subtle to intense.
How good and how bad I don't know , but the fact that there is this range is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. The specific point in the range which happens at any given moment, depends on the occasion.
For example, sleeping feels less to me than swimming, and swimming feels less than me hitting myself (and also the last one feels a bit stupid for me to do repeatedly to verify...)

2. calm down, which requires time to work, and when successful changes feelings to a less intense state.
How much time, I don't know , but the fact that I can't calm down instantaneously is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. How much time it will take for me to calm down depends on the occasion, and my previous state.
For example physical pain going away (i.e. stop feeling pain) takes more time , than putting myself to sleep.
Calming down is related to thinking, but when I am thinking, I am also trying to reach some conclusion after I imagine, feel, and calm down from emotion.

3. experience, which has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me.
How experience can be defined formally, I honestly don't know(despite my attempts in this text), but the fact that what I experience has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me,  is obvious to me judging from my life's experience.
For example, when sleeping without dreams I don't have any memory of experiencing anything when I wake up.
Sleeping with dreams which I remember, I can sense in time, and remember the dream in some order in time (probably not continuous but still ordered in time).
When I am awake, regardless of the occasion, and how relative time may seem in the moment, I can feel time passing by.

(and here I may easily be wrong...) it seems to me that the same model applies to other people, regardless of their life's experiences.

If I attempt to define the above three words more formally, I would try something like the below (which is a bit stupid to do, so please go easy on me ):

4.Axioms:
1.all people have emotions, which are infinite and uncountable , meaning there are no words which can describe exactly every emotion one feels in the moment, just potential models of humans which go around this problem.
2.But all emotions are bound within the same set for all humans, and this set is the one that describes the humans as a species.
3.Let's name this set H. For any set X for which H is subset of X, and H not equal to X, then X does not describe humans.

Definitions:
1.Feel: an infinite uncountable set of all emotions one can feel at any given moment, i.e. Feel={x|x is any emotion a human has at any given moment}.
What's the use of this:
Using this set, for any given period in time, the emotions one human passes through will be a subset of Feel.
An example would be that for the  time period of 8 hours during work, one passes through calm, happy, disappointed, laughing and the list of emotions continues (with both good and bad).
While we mentioned that the set Feel is infinite and uncountable, we also mentioned that humans have a range of emotions they can go through while being alive.
This range may be similar, but it is not the same with other living beings or, the set Feel for humans is a subset of the set Feel for all life.
For example, cats can see easier in the dark than humans, and they can do this using their emotions instinctively.
Following in the text the set Feel refers only to humans, this last note is to point to the fact that there is more emotion around in life than humans can feel.

2.Calm down: a permutation of a subset of Feel, with the first emotion in the permutation being more intense than the last (or the last being more subtle than the first).
What's the use of this:
We mentioned that calming down takes time for humans. The amount of time it takes is described if we consider the emotions one passes through during this time period.
So we use a subset of Feel to describe a time period for a human. But humans don't pass through all emotions randomly, there is a process to the madness.
What this process is I don't know, but emotions are in some order in the time period for humans to choose to repeat, plus I can write the fact that to for a human to calm down the emotions move from more intense to more subtle.
Let as consider any permutation of the subset of Feel and use two examples below.
1.For example I choose to pass through being not at all, a bit, and hungry first, and then choose to eat, in order to feel satisfied, fulfilled, joy when I eat.
Other permutations in this example make no sense, but there are examples where this is more tricky...
2.For example in human interaction there is no easy way to order the humans emotions, for the interaction to be good for all participants.
Due to this human interactions are circumstantial, and humans try to navigate their emotions per occasion.
3.In practice, most humans try to bound their behavior per occasion, and they aim to be able to do this instinctively, in order to avoid getting hurt.
When this works, people repeat the behavior, when it fails they get hurt in some way and need to do something else than calming down.
For calming down, if we consider a permutation of a subset of feel, with the first emotion in the permutation being more intense than the last (or the last being more subtle than the first), the process of calming down is described enough for the time period it refers to.
Emotions in the the permutation of a subset of feel, can have spikes (i.e. one emotion to the next are distant), even when one is calming down. For example if you have a toothache, and you are trying to calm down, you still get spikes of pain.

Think: a cycle of a subset of Feel, which humans want to repeat
In general the time periods humans go through can be described with the following process as:
1. one wakes up sometime 2. one passes through emotions the rest time one is up (actions are implied here) 3. one sleeps sometime later. --> this is usually a day, although some night owls may stretch it , thus the general description.
For smaller or longer periods of time, humans try to have a 1. beginning, 2. middle, 3. end in all their stories, arguments, facts, or actions in general ,or what they do cannot be understood by others.
For example a story is John went to the grocery shop, bought bananas, came back home and ate them.
For example an argument is that John should have remembered to buy shampoo as his wife asked him to.
For example a fact is that the sun rises every day (An argument here would be that the sun rose yesterday and the day before as long as one can remember, and a story that there was once a time when the sun was a gas cloud condensing slowly to our solar system that we have today).
For example an action described is I wanted to make an omelette I put a pan on the fire, added oil, waited for the oil to get hot enough(judging by experience), broke and added the eggs to the pan, added enough salt and pepper(judging by experience), and waited until the eggs are cooked (judging by experience).
A cycle of a subset of feel describes a time period, for which the emotions are ordered in a cycle for humans.
This may or may not be according to what humans want. When it is, people want to repeat this cycle of emotions, when it isn't people try to avoid it. In everyday words, this is "think before you act".
However, all these written down here are jargon, and to move from a subset of Feel to a cycle of feel which you want to repeat, is a bit of a pain in the math, if I want to be honest with you (I mean look at what I'm writing trying to write here...).
So it requires patience to observe the cycle of emotions you go through and judge where you are out of your desired boundaries.
And patience is a word for which I don't know its meaning, I simply follow it intuitively.

3.Experience: when referring to a moment, it is a moment in time (for humans=an emotion a human has at any given moment), or otherwise it is a cycle of a subset of H. (Feel set= single human, H = Feel set for all humans as a species = all humans now, in the past, and in the future)
What's the meaning of this:
At any given time you experience something when you are awake.
Otherwise experience refers to a common experience humans want to have and can share, either by living it together, or by one talking about it to another.
For example me writing this text is an experience, as I am typing these words this moment. But this isn't a common experience unless I am making any sense with this text.
For example a common experience is a family.