Next Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
M¢25 Funded By Mahalo ? |
November 04, 2009 03:56 PM
RSS
No, he's asking about a crackpot autodidact that failed in his mission to teach himself anything. The so called inclusion paradox is a bunch of word play using naive set theory.
Bertrand Russel showed over hundred years ago that using naive set theory causes self referential paradoxes within mathematics and thus it was scrapped. Langan "thinks" he fixed the broken theory by allowing the universe to include itself as its own power set.
It's a bunch of word play that makes a broken theory more broken.
The following is a link to Mark Chu-Carroll's blog "Good Math, Bad Math".
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
He goes through excruciating detail on why he refers to Langan's nonsense as "Two for One: Crackpot Physics and Crackpot Set Theory".
Source(s):
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
Permalink | Report
-quote-
"There is no question that the 21st century workforce looks different than it ever has. In his new book, "The Inclusion Paradox: The Obama Era and the Transformation of Global Diversity," author Andres Tapia makes the argument that diversity doesn't guarantee inclusion, and that employers must also adjust to a global workforce that thinks as differently as it look."
-quote-
Source(s):
http://www.colormagazineusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
What is the self-inclusion paradox?
What does Langan mean when he says, "The real universe is a dynamic process resolving the self-inclusion paradox"?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Science & Mathematics |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| November 04, 2009 05:04 PM |
Bertrand Russel showed over hundred years ago that using naive set theory causes self referential paradoxes within mathematics and thus it was scrapped. Langan "thinks" he fixed the broken theory by allowing the universe to include itself as its own power set.
It's a bunch of word play that makes a broken theory more broken.
The following is a link to Mark Chu-Carroll's blog "Good Math, Bad Math".
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
He goes through excruciating detail on why he refers to Langan's nonsense as "Two for One: Crackpot Physics and Crackpot Set Theory".
Source(s):
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/two_for_one_crackpot_physics_a.php
| Asker's Rating: |
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (1)
November 04, 2009 04:36 PM
It's a book "The Inclusion Paradox: The Obama Era and the Transformation of Global Diversity," authored by Andres Tapia. -quote-
"There is no question that the 21st century workforce looks different than it ever has. In his new book, "The Inclusion Paradox: The Obama Era and the Transformation of Global Diversity," author Andres Tapia makes the argument that diversity doesn't guarantee inclusion, and that employers must also adjust to a global workforce that thinks as differently as it look."
-quote-
Source(s):
http://www.colormagazineusa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
No questions found.
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- gamemistro1, November 27, 2009 12:05 PM
- sunshineseibers, November 27, 2009 12:05 PM
- jenmueller, November 27, 2009 11:59 AM
- ash44, November 27, 2009 11:42 AM
- rupeerains, November 27, 2009 11:23 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
The real universe is contained in a powerset according to Langan.
Will you explain the Paradox from Langan's perspective?
No.
You asked this question in the Science & Mathematics category. Langan has no scientific or mathematic credentials. Since there doesn't seem to be a philosophy category, which is where his work belongs, might I suggest you post it under Society & Culture, or perhaps Humor.
As a Mathematician, I can agree that set theory is fundamental, however Langan is playing word games. In mathematics, Set theoretic discussions are taken within the context of a universal set. That is, you talk about the sets within that universal set and do not talk about the sets not within that universal set. Thus whatever you choose as your universal set of discussion, it makes no sense to talk about the power set of that chosen set. Once you do that, you are simply using naive set theory again and you entertain all the paradoxes naive set theory has to offer.
If Langan knew anything about mathematics, he would capitalize on this vernacular and discuss the universe as a universal set. Once again, screwing up a concept that has a precise mathematical definition that he likely does not understand.
"But every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger (a contradiction). The obvious solution: define an extension of set theory incorporating two senses of "containment" which work together in such a way that the largest set can be defined as "containing" its powerset in one sense while being contained by its powerset in the other."
Langan's "obvious" solution is actually counter intuitive. It is more obvious, in my opinion, to not have a largest set. That is, one should be able to take power sets forever, but this doesn't cure the problems of naive set theory and is not how mathematicians removed the contradictions from the theory.
How? Logic is a process. If you want to claim some kind of magical self resolution you need to show how this will be done.
"Is the Universe intelligent? Is the Universe the sum of the cognitive parts because cognition and thought projects reality? What is the final purpose of the Universe and how does that purpose relate to man?"
Our cognition interprets reality. It does not create it. If humans were not here to interpret what we see, it does not mean our universe would cease to exist. As in the old saying about a tree falling in the forest. If no one is there to hear it, then sure one can argue that the tree makes no sound, but there is still a tree in the forest.
As for the universe having a final purpose relating to man: This notion is simply the cognitive hubris of mankind. The universe does not require the existence of mankind. Man requires the existence of the universe. SImilarly, the Earth does not require man to keep doing what the Earth does, man needs the Earth to keep doing what the Earth does.