My book The Symbolics has a bestseller rank!

BOOK DESCRIPTION

Just over 100 pages, this small and significant book combines knowledge and a high degree of selectivity, combined with insightful articles and primary descriptions to give the symbols nerd just what he or she needs: a dose of logic, meaning, and expert commentary, all from someone who has had a life-long passion for symbolism. In this volume, he explores the nature of symbolism, illustrating over 100 examples, including pagodas, fractals, birds of paradise, metaphysical systems, and many others selected for their symbolic importance.
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #181,958 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#75 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Reference > Dictionaries & Thesauruses
#383 in Books > Reference > Dictionaries & Thesauruses > Dictionaries
#50715 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction

https://www.amazon.com/Symbolics-Nathan-Coppedge-ebook/dp/B00WHA3O5E

THE GOLDEN NOTEBOOK CURRENTLY HAS A BEST-SELLER RANK!

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #120,874 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#31 in Kindle Store > Kindle Short Reads > 15 minutes (1-11 pages) > Education & Reference
#32 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Reference > Quotations
#106 in Books > Reference > Quotations

This text has been updated several times recently to reflect materials by Nathan Coppedge and Protagoras (goody!)

Purchase here: http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Notebook-Translations-Nathan-Coppedge-ebook/dp/B015XA0F4C/

On Infinite Things

The thing I notice about infinite anything is that it affects everything else, until the total quantity of things reaches infinity, at which point it becomes less pronounced.

So, for example, if there are infinite things, but only one of them is infinite in value, then there is an appearance of ignoring that infinite thing, but really the infinite thing is almost everything there is in that world.

However, if everything in the world is infinite, then it will be very hard to find the influence of just one of those infinite things.

However, it is easier to find the influence of infinite things than the influence of things that are not infinite, even if everything is infinite.

---Nathan Coppedge, Via Quora (2016 / 03 / 23).

Today someone was labeled psychotic for thinking I was lucipher...

This shows the dangers of attempting to boost popularity with ideas about divinity and demonhood.

I do have a number of quotes in which I argue that I'm a devil, but I have thought about deleting them, and they are by far not the majority of my quotations.

I reassure you that I am a paranoid schizophrenic living in New Haven, CT. Because of my illness, I've had similar problems with police and EMT's, and I hope that if you're reading this you will forgive me for holding extreme and bizarre ideas years after having an experience like yours.

In some ways I think the shit in the open shower drain at Yale Adolescent Psychiatric was just as bad as calling myself a devil. It's a weird world we live in, and sometimes words are only words.

Here is a link about my experience with schizophrenia:

https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-experienced-madness-How-does-it-feel-like/answer/Nathan-Coppedge

The Logic of Millennials

The word "Millennial".

Assorted goodies.

A perverse feeling.

Justification.


(Really better than stuff before, so far as presentation, but with many shortcomings, amounting to an over-commitment to media over 'real life'. Of course, Generation Y was like this, too. Although a Millennial might say that any relation is a delusion.)


Anyway, don't feel bad, millennials! All you need is good feelings. And in many cases, they are widely available! Borrow a little authenticity from prior generations, and you're as good as gold!

(In fact many millennials are more mature than me at this point. They know how to drive a car or succeed in college. Some millennials may ask me, where are those people? Every generation fails by its own standard, even while the class above every level succeeds in surpassing the class beneath it, while failing at its own standard... I for one invented my own status in the world, but remain a loser by most standards... There are people in Generation Y who are more mature than me, too, obviously. I for one don't know how anyone holds a job or graduates in four years... The longest job I have had lasted 2 years... public library...)

HOW TO BUILD A 100-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE

NOTE: I cannot answer in mathematical terms, but I can venture a physical and philosophical answer. The fifth dimension involves extension into and beyond 4-d. Thus, it involves not just the possibility, but the guarantee of two time dimensions. A general way to extend dimensions is to think first of possibility, and then in the next dimension as reality.

For example,

1-d sometimes exists.

2-d is virtual but always exists.

3-d exists and is never virtual and is not fully aware of time.

4-d exists and is never virtual and controls time.

5-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and potentially has two fundamental types of matter.

6-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and always has two fundamental types of matter.

7-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and always has two fundamental types of matter, and potentially has two concepts of time.

8-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and always has two fundamental  types of matter, and always has two concepts of time, and potentially has some other thing.

9-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and always has two fundamental types of matter, and always has two concepts of time, and always has some other thing.

10-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and potentially has three concepts of matter, and always has two concepts of time, and always has some other thing.

11-d exists and is never virtual and controls time and always has three concepts of matter, and always has two concepts of time, and always has some other thing.

12-d exists, and is never virtual and controls time and always has three concepts of matter, and sometimes has three concepts of time, and always has some other thing.

13-d exists, and is never virtual, and controls time, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has some other thing.

14-d exists, and is never virtual, and controls time, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and sometimes has two other things.

15-d exists, and is never virtual, and controls time, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has two other things.

16-d might not exist, or is partly virtual, or partly chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has two other things.

17-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has two other things.

18-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and sometimes has three other things.

19-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has three other things.

20-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has three other things, and sometimes has an additional power.

21-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has three concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has three other things, and always has an additional power.

22-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and sometimes has four concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has three other things, and always has an additional power.

23-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has three concepts of time, and always has three other things, and always has an additional power.

24-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and sometimes has four concepts of time, and always has three other things, and always has an additional power.

25-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has three other things, and always has an additional power.

26-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and sometimes has four other things, and always has an additional power.

27-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has an additional power.

28-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and sometimes has two additional powers.

29-d doesn't exist, or is virtual, or is chaotic, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has two additional powers.

30-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has four concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has two additional powers.

31-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and sometimes has five concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has two additional powers.

32-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter, and always has four concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has two additional powers.

33-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter, and sometimes has five concepts of time, and always has four other things, and always has two additional powers.

34-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter, and always has five concepts of time, and sometimes has five other things, and always has two additional powers.

35-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter, and always has five concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has two additional powers.

36-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter, and always has five concepts of time, and always has five other things, and sometimes has three additional powers.

37-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has five concepts of matter. and always has five concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has three additional powers.

38-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and sometimes has six concepts of matter. and always has five concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has three additional powers.

39-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has five concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has three additional powers.

40-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and sometimes has six concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has three additional powers.

41-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has five other things, and always has three additional powers.

42-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and sometimes has six other things, and always has three additional powers.

43-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has three additional powers.

44-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and sometimes has four additional powers.

45-d is an illusion, or composite, or mind, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

46-d is relative, and broken, and magical, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

47-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has six concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

48-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and sometimes has seven concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

49-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has six concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

50-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and sometimes has seven concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

51-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has six other things, and always has four additional powers.

52-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and sometimes has seven other things, and always has four additional powers.

53-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has four additional powers.

54-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and sometimes has five additional powers.

55-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has seven concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has five additional powers.

56-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and sometimes has eight concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has five additional powers.

57-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has seven concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has five additional powers.

58-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and sometimes has eight concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has five additional powers.

59-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has seven other things, and always has five additional powers.

60-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and sometimes has eight other things, and always has five additional powers.

61-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has five additional powers.

62-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and sometimes has six additional powers.

62-d is absolute, and undifferentiated, and universal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

63-d is impermanent or finite or fatal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

64-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has eight concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

65-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and sometimes has nine concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

66-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has eight concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

67-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter. and sometimes has nine concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

68-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has eight other things, and always has six additional powers.

69-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and sometimes has nine other things, and always has six additional powers.

70-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has six additional powers.

71-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and sometimes has seven additional powers.

72-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has nine concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has seven additional powers.

73-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and sometimes has ten concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has seven additional powers.

74-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has nine concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has seven additional powers.

75-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and sometimes has ten concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has seven additional powers.

76-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has nine other things, and always has seven additional powers.

77-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and sometimes has ten other things, and always has seven additional powers.

78-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has seven additional powers.

79-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and sometimes has eight additional powers.

80-d is permanent, infinite, and eternal, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

81-d is destruction, art, and purpose, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

82-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has ten concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

83-d is time, jest, and transformation, and sometimes has eleven concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

84-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has ten concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

85-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and sometimes has eleven concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

86-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has ten other things, and always has eight additional powers.

87-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and sometimes has eleven other things, and always has eight additional powers.

88-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and always has eight additional powers.

89-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and sometimes has nine additional powers.

90-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has eleven concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and always has nine additional powers.

91-d is time, jest, and transformation, and sometimes has twelve concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and always has nine additional powers.

92-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and always has eleven concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and always has nine additional powers.

93-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and sometimes has twelve concepts of time, and always has eleven other things, and always has nine additional powers.

94-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and sometimes has twelve other things, and always has nine additional powers.

95-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and always has nine additional powers.

96-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and sometimes has ten additional powers.

97-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has twelve concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and always has ten additional powers

98-d is time, jest, and transformation, and sometimes has thirteen concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and always has ten additional powers.

99-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has thirteen concepts of matter, and always has twelve concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and always has ten additional powers.

100-d is time, jest, and transformation, and always has thirteen concepts of matter, and sometimes has thirteen concepts of time, and always has twelve other things, and always has ten additional powers.


Etc.


AFTERWORD
It is possible to conceive of other typological systems, however, in which these typological dimensions are not reached, or in which one characteristic, such as material complexity, time complexity, or sheer complexity develops quickly while other characteristics do not.
My conclusion for the fifth dimension based on the study of characteristic dimensions is that it objectively involves the most advanced conceivable concept of five properties (one for each dimension): (1) nature, (2) materials, (3) structure, (4) properties / culture, and (5) evolution. These are sort of the Qubits of 5-d space. And it can be added that 5-d may be a different spatial or metaphysical dimension, with the assumption that simpler experiences are analogous to Flatland, and that more advanced experiences can be approximated.



The above is also available as an academic article HERE: https://www.academia.edu/22558908/How_to_Build_a_100-Dimensional_Universe

TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF REASON

I don't know if it's worth winter so i don't know if it's worth a coca cola

I CROSSED THAT WAY AND THIS WAY UNTIL I MET A MAN

AcademicRoom (as opposed to Academia.edu) is not functioning today. So, to vent my frustration I am posting my recent paper here instead.

TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF REASON

I will begin with a description of what I mean by the development of reason. In this process, I will develop four categories, and relate how the descriptions imply two interpretations: one forwards, and another backwards. I will then explain the apparent paradox involved in this reason, and finally suggest a general method used in arriving at this useful double-comparison.

(1) Deux Interpretationes

What we know as reason is potentially just one stage of reason. I arrived at this idea by considering the question of: ‘What measures reason?’ And I thought, from a coherent perspective, the only thing that could measure reason was something outside of reason. And there could be nothing outside of reason except madness. But this raised a further question of ‘What is outside of madness?’And I thought this too could be solvable. The most obvious answer I could find was ‘Sanity’. Thus far three categories. Now, to round it out I attempted to add a fourth, responding to madness just as sanity responded to reason. And my answer for the fourth category was ‘Creativity’.

In this way, creativity became the ultimate bound of madness, just as sanity became the ultimate bound of reason.

The Four Categories are:

(1) Reason
(2) Madness
(3) Sanity
(4) Creativity

Now, developmentally, there are two interpretations (‘Deux Interpretationes’). One is that reason progresses into creativity. The other is the reverse: that creativity develops into reason. The distinction is important, because the difference developmentally seems to imply a priority for one or the other concept, or a reliance on either sanity or madness as a secondary runner-up concept.

So, now we have a second interpretation:

(1) Creativity
(2) Sanity
(3) Madness
(4) Reason

The second interpretation seems to put the emphasis on reason, but begins with creativity. The first interpretation puts the emphasis on creativity, but begins with reason.


(2) Paradox

Now, it may be further noted that reason appears to express the ‘ultimate’ embodiment of this set of data. In other words, all of the types are in some sense attempts at reason. Or, at least, reason is the simplest definition to use in place of any of the four, interpreted as I have interpreted them as translations of reason originally. However, in a similar way, creativity may be called an ‘empirical’ embodiment of the set of data.

Therefore, there is a conflict between the ultimate and the empirical, which amounts to a paradox. For, although the two concepts appear similar, the context places them separately as opposite alternatives. The choice appears to be between the two, even though they are the same.

If we are to prefer the empirical, we are left with creativity and abstract reason. If we choose the ultimate, we are left with nominalism, and end up groping for creativity to solve its significance.


(3) A General Method Derived from the Investigation

What may be called the ING Method may be derived most simply from the consideration of a set which reverses order, in which a double-horned dilemma emerges. The solution is always a choice between ultimates, and the ultimates are further made ambiguous by the ambiguous size of the set. Thus, there is a kind of criss-crossing between degrees of each extreme, and its relation to the central interpretation (a paradox).

ING may stand for ‘Inverse Negative Grouping’.

I'm now a Top Writer in Wormholes on Quora!

https://www.quora.com/topic/Wormholes/writers

My earnings as an author...

2012

$16.16

2013

$43

2014

$269.99, some of it unpaid in that year ($85.27 subtracted out because it was not earned yet).

2015

$254.66 earned by Oct. 21st.

Total:

Almost $500.

(But note also that I'm trying to dig myself out of the money I spent on Authorhouse, which was probably at least $1200. So, technically I'm still in the hole). My current publisher (Amazon/ CreateSpace) is the only reason I have any earnings potential, besides the content of my books.

The above includes both texts and e-books.

Notice, the exponential curve has dropped off.  I suspect this is because of poor marketing from my publisher.

But, at least the year has not been worse than last, if I assume some continued sales in Nov - Dec.

My author page may be found at: http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge 
notably I have not sold copies of The Structure of Philosophical Revolutions yet (It's been about a week or two).

Fragment on Time-Travel

"The understanding of the events I describe in the book might be clarified if it is understood that god-like powers are just very big exceptions-to-the-rule that come about because of perceptiveness and a little extra license from the universe. Here's a hint: it helps to do something that is in synch with history. Creating history is a cheat that can permit huge freedoms." ----Nathan Coppedge, via Quora.com

The Dimensional Time Travel Toolkit was published this year...

I have an imitator

who has just started a new website.

Some of his work is convincing, whereas other of it simply misses the facts.

For example, he dismisses 'unbalanced wheels' while adopting a design he thinks is unbalanced that is very similar to a design widely disproven by experiment.

In my own principles the Bhaskara vertical wheel type designs don't work because of a dual-directional problem with the rising and falling weights, what has conventionally simply been called 'symmetry'.

Anyway, have a look if you like, at "Simon's Wheel":

http://www.simonswheel.co.uk/

THE THREE PERSONALITIES OF GINSENG

Cunningham's Encyclopedia of Magical Herbs says that it's good for love and making wishes.

But, in my limited experience with the herb (and I think I'm sensitive), I feel that it makes me feel possessed, and then grants me considerable intelligence gradually. In my view, this is only the second of three personalities of Ginseng.

The first is intelligent lovers, who mistake it for love, but are really boosting their obsession with their own intelligence.

The third personality is less intellgent people who think it connotes wisdom, plain and simple. But this just means they think it means other people's intelligence.

So, riddle solved! Ginseng just means possession in exchange for long-term intelligence. If you're wishing for intelligence, then it could mean wishing, too! And if you're wishing for intelligent love, then it could also help there, unless you don't want to feel possessed!

So, riddle solved! No further look for information about Ginseng. It is likely to deceive you.

And, if you want a cheap immortality remedy, look no further than Turmeric ('yellow root'), rather than Ginseng.

Unforeseen Hurdles on the Path to Greatness...

HOW TO WIN BACKGAMMON IF YOU'RE THE DEVIL(O)

PATIENCE LLO

HOW TO WIN BACKGAMMON IF YOU'RE THE DEVIL (ISTO NOT WINO OTHELLO)

Here is a list of some major (or minor) intellectual hurdles I have passed through, some of which I may still be dealing with, on the path to greater quotability and ~monetary excellence (excuse my language).

ROUGHLY IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER:

1. My childhood accident. I fell off a changing table, and later my father and brother 'tested' my head with a carpenter's hammer. I come from a very intelligent family, but I'm brain-damaged.

2. My rejection of Spanish. When I was 3 or 4 years old I refused to speak Spanish ever again... until I took it up in middle school. Still not much of a linguist.

3. My childhood obsession with weapons and armor. This was probably the biggest hurdle to learning mathematics and studying the classics. It continued into my teens.

4. My father's statement that he was a Determinist. This seemed blind stupid to me, because there was no ethics without free will.

5. My obsession with computer games. My senior year of high school I was often late for class and did not complete assignments, because I was up late, and all day wanted to play computer games. One time (later on) my face even turned blue while I was sitting at the computer screen. I had to literally crawl to the bathroom sink, and gulp water to keep from dying.

6. Unlucky at finding genius poetry. At the Dodge Poetry Festival I fished around in some books, and found nothing I liked. I also feel unlucky in not discovering Dickinson until high school, and not finding the Romantics (except for Blake) until college.

7. My differences with the Existentialists. I'm neither a French speaker nor particularly disillusioned in my attitude. And yet the existentialists are the most intellectual movement that ever existed.

8. My rejection by Brown University. I thought I was Ivy material. Then I had to 'guess not'. My scholarships weren't great either, amounting to about $2500 and some loans.

9. My reliance on my mother. I didn't feel like I owned my own clothes or bookshelf until I was at least 29 years old. Although my mother let my younger brother do shopping at an early age, she held me back for some reason, thinking I couldn't do things on my own. Part of it was my own fault, or resulted from the brain damage.

10. My un-willingness to be frank about my interest in magic and mysticism. This may stem from my father's Atheism, and my physical distance from him. I first took interest in the Tao Te Ching when I acquired fragments of it in a calendar from my childhood friend, who was Valedictorian in high school. For a long time I thought I couldn't really study it, because it was Chinese and somehow beyond my intelligence, and that held me back in studying the magical importance of any type of writing. It wasn't until about 2013 that I started writing about magic, even though I had had an interest in enchantments and elves as a child, and once dressed as a wizard for Halloween.

11. The Neo-Classical Disaster(s). I keep running into people and websites who are obsessed with classical Greek philosophy, and this has largely held me back about my own (what I take to be modern) philosophy. However, I have produced a number of dialogues that I eventually plan to publish as a book. (Another story: my current philosophy honor society mentor is a classicist: frustrating missed opportunity for modernist mentorship).

12. Failure to win the genius awards. I had my heart set on this one, and a lot of papers put together. But apparently a few of the other participants were more deserving. So much for pretending to be a chair of philosophy.

66(6 33T 22T)T

LOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO MATHEMATICAL INCOMPLETENESS

I have been musing about the dialogues between Einstein and Niels Bohr, and also the relations between the greatness of Einstein and the greatness of Kurt Godel. My solution to this dialogue is that there are key insights which overshadow the doubts that emerged at the time. You will excuse me if I introduce some psychology in the schematizing of the thoughts of the time, as psychology is often what is warranted in solving intractable problems. In part because mathematics and physics have often been seen as related disciplines, it can be seen that there is some factuality to the influence of hormonal competitiveness with Einstein in the specific design of theories of his competitors, such as Godel’s incompleteness.

I will leave that complex idea as an initial lemma, except that there is a particular relation between logic and mathematics that may be worth discussing. This is specifically the role between proof theory (a.k.a. Einstein), and the causal relationship between mathematics and physics.

For, we would not ordinarily say that physics is incomplete----at least I wouldn’t. Instead of criticizing this point as having irrelevance out of the inherent incompleteness of physics, we can adopt a logical tool, and say that physics is semantically complete. For, after all, in logic we would not say that a theory is incomplete if it appeared (like Aristotle’s syllogisms), to provide an explanation for any type of conclusiveness we might imagine. Nor would I say that this view is naïve, since even in science the deference is to the best available theory. We would not say science is wrong because it does not know absolutely everything. Instead, we would say that it is relatively complete. And, I argue, it is the same with physics. Unless we are being very technical about what completeness means----and I think we aren’t absolutely technical here, just as the physics is not absolutely complete----then it makes sense to consider physics as though it has some degree of completeness, e.g. it is a relatively successful attempt at a complete explanation. Even if there are multiple categories of physics (relative, quantum, string theory), each category undoubtedly contributes to the completeness of physics, or the theories would be regarded as quack science.

Now that I have argued that physics is considered relatively complete, I would like to make an interesting stipulation. If physics is considered complete, and math is not considered complete, is there something that can be had here? Although math is not normally considered ‘physical’ ---- could it be that the immaterialism of math is groping with a primitive spiritual idea, instead of what it should be doing, which is accepting some perhaps unseen form of objectivity?

For, what is ‘incompleteness’ saying except that math cannot be objective? Wouldn’t objective incompleteness be an oxymoronic definition? Or would it just mean that math cannot ever be complete? Then, are we saying that math cannot ever be complete in a complete sense, or are we saying that math is itself un-objective? I think no one will make the claim that math is un-objective, and asking if math can be complete in a complete sense begs the question of whether we are in fact being relativistic. For there is no sense of math apart from the objective sense, unless it becomes a math of un-objective things. But, instead of wading deeper and deeper into the sense of math as an un-objective application----which clearly leads to un-objective conclusions----the principle that truth is the obviation of the obvious gives us several options: (1) Truth is obvious, (2) Truth is about obviating, (3) Truth isn’t obvious, and (4) Truth isn’t about obviating. Clearly I think it is the case where math is not about obviating that seems like the weak point. But have we proved for definite that math cannot obviate truth? I think regardless of the amount of education required to learn math, it certainly can! And this goes against the principle of Godel’s incompleteness.

However, to prove for definite that there is some mathematical principle based on physics that could be foundational for math requires additional reasoning. But there is nothing which says such ideas could not be foundational in some exceptional, acceptable sense.


In my own theories on logic, I have arrived at a concept of a bounded Cartesian Coordinate system defined by polar opposite word pairs. In this case, it was simply conceptualizing differently which permitted the context to be understandable. I would advocate a similar solution for math. The concept that some mathematical principles are complex, unavailable, or infinite may be limiting the cogency of mathematics. Furthermore, there may be some way in which infinity is not being conceptualized appropriately. My own solution has been that the trans-finite is a product of division rather than multiplication. Unless there is a concept of a whole, math will remain incomplete. But if infinity is a byproduct of multiplying and adding exponents, this assumes the consequence that there is no whole, and thus, that math is incomplete. But the process by which this occurs is not mathematical, instead, it is a more rudimentary logic that might be proven wrong, as I have shown. Certainly the concept that math is not whole does much to refute mathematics, if it comes last. But I think it could just as easily have come first. If it is a matter of cause and effect, and it could be either one, then it is clear that incompleteness is not 100% correct.

In logic, if there is something ambiguous, the process is to search for new and creative ways to solve the ambiguity. These tools are not as easy to apply in math, when the assumption is that it is a product of its products. However, math sometimes involves philosophy. It sometimes involves logic. Some of its assumptions could be wrong. And I think this is the most likely explanation for any form of absolute mathematical incompleteness.

As I mentioned, I have thought of some possible ways to support math by combining it with physics. What if, for example, there was some strength to physical arbitrariness? Once we assume that math is physical, as it may well be in some sense, we can then perhaps prove that since math is more arbitrary than physics, then math has greater support than physics! By this form of arbitrariness, what I mean is that it is not as directly influenced by causal laws. Or, more precisely, it applies to a wide range of phenomena without participating directly in their chain of causality. And, even if math did participate in an object’s chain of causality, this would not make math less arbitrary than the objects being determined. The objects are by definition, the most determined things about observation. Math, then, whether it depends on observations, or does not depend on observations, remains less determined than matter. And, where it is less determined, so far as it does not disappear, it has a more permanent influence.

So, at this point we have a few options. Either (1) math disappears, or (2) math has some influence. But, here is the important corollary. If math has influence, math is physical. And what is physical is not incomplete. We already know, since it is less determined than matter, that it is more influential than matter. Therefore, math is more complete than matter!


---Nathan Coppedge
July 21st, 2015
New Haven, CT


It will also be available as an academic paper at: https://www.academia.edu/14269683/Logical_Solutions_to_Mathematical_Incompleteness if you want a more cite-able format.

Another Compliment from a Potential Critic

Thanks for the interesting topic.

I could not see any detail in the photos / video of 
your device.  

Can you provide us with a more detailed drawing or photo ?

I would very much like to replicate / see for my self the device.

---"Floor"

See the rest of this conversation about perpetual motion HERE.

Life Status Update...

I'm currently taking a Math for Liberal Arts class at SCSU.

This is the last math class required for my philosophy degree.

Still a little bit nervous about the Biology / Chemistry / Physics requirements.

Last time I took Biology I developed an illness. Requirements should really not be so strict for a philosophy major. I would write more philosophical books if I didn't have a Biology requirement hanging over my head (Biology made its way into the 3rd volume of the Dimensional Encyclopedia, although if I could sustain a more advanced concept at the expense of practicality I might have devoted the third book to exceptions or metem-physics). The current concept is good, however, as it allows a psychological angle, as well as some coverage of harder sciences like Economics and Mathematics.

Still visiting my mother sometimes on the weekends. Money from Social Security for my schizophrenia disability. Living in a nice apartment in New Haven (with subsidy). Have nice potted plants (including one remaining lavender plant) and my own bathroom, washer, and dryer.

Looking forward to future productivity, and eventually finishing my degree. I'm almost halfway done with my college courses now. There's some clear space on the horizon. I'm thinking of avoiding graduate school. Taking this long, its as if undegraduate is enough. I'd probably get fed up if I took it a little further. Then again, professional philosophy requires a PhD, even if I remain unemployable.

Working on phenomenology toolkit currently. Some say its outmoded / outdated, but I think it's a viable category because it deals with a really important issue: life's phenomena. Only with this fresh approach should phenomenology every have been considered, except as an analysis of deep concepts from psychology, formalism, or metaphysics.

So, things are okay. I'm not depressed. But I'm going to a clinic on Orange St. which requires me to attend group therapy, which is really annoying, because nearly everyone else there has a nasty cigarette habit. Very annoying, very maligning of my still orders. If I regain my sanity, I won't have to deal with the garbage-y personalities at the clinic. Maybe motivation is all I need.

Nathan Coppedge is Now in the Top 3% at Academia.edu

ACADEMIA.EDU

top 3%

by 30-day views up from Top 4%

1,443

total views only 4 document views today.

27

followers major gains this year.