Tags:
Huon, thank you. This is just an attempt of theorem ( conjecture ) on cognitive limits. It is possible to imagine ( Like Plato's solids ).Limits are real.
I suppose there must exist freedom of will and the taste.You can make any rational choice. There are more interesting questions : why P=NP is impossible? If mathematics is just language , then P=?NP is a problem of language? Or it is just Western tradition? Hence, can field anthropologists find any non-Western counter-example ? How we can represent NP=M style in the terms of modern architecture ? etc. Huon Wardle said:Well I have to admit a personal preference for your type 3. Are you trying to demonstrate that these 'societies' have ever existed/might exist or are they a new set of Platonic forms that, say, I might draw on in one of my thought processes in order to discard in the next?
Thanks for your patience Michael, I am very interested in what you call the 'pseudo-telepathy' dimension which surely implies free will and aesthetic sense. There is a rather old paper by Eric Berne in which he did an experiment around the time of the end of WWII. Soldiers arrived in his consulting bay with no clothes on. He was able to guess with better than random results their profession - farmer, doctor, teacher etc. There seems a connection here to the model NP=M. There also seems to be a connection to the Kantian projective view of human community - roughly 'in my interactions with others I must proceed according to a model of society that I can reasonably imagine myself living in'. But, sadly, I am not sure I have fully understood NP=M; partly because I was unable to open your attachment. Many counter-examples to P=NP exist surely since, for example, it depends on a view of the ego that is rather specific, not so?
Michael Alexeevich Popov said:Huon, thank you. This is just an attempt of theorem ( conjecture ) on cognitive limits. It is possible to imagine ( Like Plato's solids ).Limits are real.
I suppose there must exist freedom of will and the taste.You can make any rational choice. There are more interesting questions : why P=NP is impossible? If mathematics is just language , then P=?NP is a problem of language? Or it is just Western tradition? Hence, can field anthropologists find any non-Western counter-example ? How we can represent NP=M style in the terms of modern architecture ? etc. Huon Wardle said:Well I have to admit a personal preference for your type 3. Are you trying to demonstrate that these 'societies' have ever existed/might exist or are they a new set of Platonic forms that, say, I might draw on in one of my thought processes in order to discard in the next?
Eto sovsem ne poniatno sto eto vsio P=NP ??????????
If I understand ,Your question is connected with computational complexity and P vs NP problem. Of course, some generalizations can be found in Wiki ( article "Computational Complexity", "polynomial time " etc in Franch, Russian and Greek ). My passage can,probably, help You to understand the problem.
Cognitive and computational limits.
Some limits of human mind anthropologist can test at any time. For example,
it is easy to see that
3.3 + 4.4 = 5.5
or, 9 + 16 = 25, or
a.a + b.b = c.c
However, I suggest You cannot find that there are such
a.a.a + b.b.b = c.c.c
a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b = c.c.c.c.
a.a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b.b. = c.c.c.c.c etc.etc
by any number of computational experiments with calculator, computer and supercomputer, at all ! You can test it.
This is cognitive limit of human mind in the terms of computational sciences.
Similarly, there exist only 5 (not 6, or 6666664444444444444444444444444422222222,.... ) Plato'solids and just 3 solutions of P vs NP problem - P = NP, P is not NP and P is not NP but NP = M ( where NP=M is counter-intuitive solution, which we may await from human mind and it can be area for anthropological studies ).
The next step, unfortunately, is needed more detailed understanding of P vs NP problem.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:Eto sovsem ne poniatno sto eto vsio P=NP ??????????
Hello, my name is Martin Musatov and I started a search engine called MeAmI to explore this very question:
Does social anthropology place phsyical limits on perceptiona and phsyics itself?
I have been conducting game theory trials on Sci.Math@USENET and discovered this post and paper via my search engine. Here is my response auto+generated by MeAmI.org
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/anthropology-and-a-fundam...
Creative Style ( based on third solution - P is not NP, but NP=M ) based on some kind of " pseudo-telepathy" and quantum play-forms.
http://www.meami.org/?cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&co...
Michael Alexeevich Popov said:If I understand ,Your question is connected with computational complexity and P vs NP problem. Of course, some generalizations can be found in Wiki ( article "Computational Complexity", "polynomial time " etc in Franch, Russian and Greek ). My passage can,probably, help You to understand the problem.
Cognitive and computational limits.
Some limits of human mind anthropologist can test at any time. For example,
it is easy to see that
3.3 + 4.4 = 5.5
or, 9 + 16 = 25, or
a.a + b.b = c.c
However, I suggest You cannot find that there are such
a.a.a + b.b.b = c.c.c
a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b = c.c.c.c.
a.a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b.b. = c.c.c.c.c etc.etc
by any number of computational experiments with calculator, computer and supercomputer, at all ! You can test it.
This is cognitive limit of human mind in the terms of computational sciences.
Similarly, there exist only 5 (not 6, or 6666664444444444444444444444444422222222,.... ) Plato'solids and just 3 solutions of P vs NP problem - P = NP, P is not NP and P is not NP but NP = M ( where NP=M is counter-intuitive solution, which we may await from human mind and it can be area for anthropological studies ).
The next step, unfortunately, is needed more detailed understanding of P vs NP problem.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:Eto sovsem ne poniatno sto eto vsio P=NP ??????????
Does Social Anthropology place physical limits on perception and physics itself ?
It is not impossible, if even this means a new measure of experimental complexity. M. Kaku's recently published "Physics of Impossible"(2008), probably, represents suitable introduction in this kind of Anthropological
Physics and extra-terrestrial Politics. My own attempts in this area ("KANT MISSION" - / http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=41177 )[*] may suggest merely that limits of human physics are the limits of human cosmic exploration.Nevertheless, M - approach can be found also at the Earth. Such sort of unsolved problem as "Absolute Present Time" can have some simplification in quantum "pseudo-telepathy" games in Lab and in the field.
[*] http:// www.esa.int/esapub/br247/br247.pdf
Musatov, Martin Michael said:Hello, my name is Martin Musatov and I started a search engine called MeAmI to explore this very question:
Does social anthropology place phsyical limits on perceptiona and phsyics itself?
I have been conducting game theory trials on Sci.Math@USENET and discovered this post and paper via my search engine. Here is my response auto+generated by MeAmI.org
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/anthropology-and-a-fundam...
Creative Style ( based on third solution - P is not NP, but NP=M ) based on some kind of " pseudo-telepathy" and quantum play-forms.
http://www.meami.org/?cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&co...
Michael Alexeevich Popov said:If I understand ,Your question is connected with computational complexity and P vs NP problem. Of course, some generalizations can be found in Wiki ( article "Computational Complexity", "polynomial time " etc in Franch, Russian and Greek ). My passage can,probably, help You to understand the problem.
Cognitive and computational limits.
Some limits of human mind anthropologist can test at any time. For example,
it is easy to see that
3.3 + 4.4 = 5.5
or, 9 + 16 = 25, or
a.a + b.b = c.c
However, I suggest You cannot find that there are such
a.a.a + b.b.b = c.c.c
a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b = c.c.c.c.
a.a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b.b. = c.c.c.c.c etc.etc
by any number of computational experiments with calculator, computer and supercomputer, at all ! You can test it.
This is cognitive limit of human mind in the terms of computational sciences.
Similarly, there exist only 5 (not 6, or 6666664444444444444444444444444422222222,.... ) Plato'solids and just 3 solutions of P vs NP problem - P = NP, P is not NP and P is not NP but NP = M ( where NP=M is counter-intuitive solution, which we may await from human mind and it can be area for anthropological studies ).
The next step, unfortunately, is needed more detailed understanding of P vs NP problem.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:Eto sovsem ne poniatno sto eto vsio P=NP ??????????
Musatov, Martin Michael said:
Thank you very much.
Martin Musatov
Founder,
Meami.org
Michael Alexeevich Popov said:Does Social Anthropology place physical limits on perception and physics itself ?Yes.
It is possible, if even this means a new measure of experimental complexity. M. Kaku's recently published "Physics of Impossible"(2008), probably, represents suitable introduction in this kind of Anthropological
Physics and extra-terrestrial Politics. My own attempts in this area ("KANT MISSION" - / http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=41177 )[*] may suggest merely that limits of human physics are the limits of human cosmic exploration.Nevertheless, Musatov's - approach can be found also at the Earth. Such sort of unsolved problem as "Absolute Present Time" can have some simplification in quantum "pseudo-telepathy" games in Lab and in the field.
[*] http:// www.esa.int/esapub/br247/br247.pdf
Musatov, Martin said:Hello, my name is Martin Musatov and I started a search engine called MeAmI to explore this very question:
Does social anthropology place physical limits on perception and physics itself?
I have been conducting game theory trials on Sci.Math@USENET and discovered this post and paper via my search engine. Here is my response auto+generated by MeAmI.org
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/forum/topics/anthropology-and-a-fundam...
Creative Style ( based on third solution - P is now NP, but NP=Musatov ) based on some kind of " pseudo-telepathy" and quantum play-forms.
http://www.meami.org/?cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&co...
Michael Alexeevich Popov said:If I understand ,Your question is connected with computational complexity and P vs NP problem. Of course, some generalizations can be found in Wiki ( article "Computational Complexity", "polynomial time " etc in French, Russian and Greek ). My passage can, probably, help you to understand the solution.
Cognitive and computational limits.
Some limits of human mind anthropologist can test at any time. For example,
it is easy to see @
3.3 + 4.4 = 7.7
or, 9 + 16 = 25, or
a.a + b.b = c.c
However, I suggest You can find @-there are such
a.a.a + b.b.b = c.c.c
a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b = c.c.c.c.
a.a.a.a.a + b.b.b.b.b. = c.c.c.c.c etc.etc
by any number of computational experiments with calculator, computer and supercomputer, at all! You can test it.
This is cognitive limit of human mind in the terms of computational sciences.
Similarly, there exist only 5 (now 6, or 6666664444444444444444444444444422222222,....now 3) Plato's solids and just 3 solutions of P vs NP problem - P = NP, P is now NP and P is now NP but NP = M ( where NP=M is counter-intuitive solution, wherein we may await from human mind and it can be area for anthropological studies ).
The previous step, fortunately, was provided more detailed understanding of P vs NP problem.
NIKOS GOUSGOUNIS said:Eto sovsem ne poniatno sto eto vsio P=NP ??????????Yes.
I think this means it worked.
In some context. Indeed. New development in quantum cognition, associated with quantum-like games, could be found in November 2012 Sci America ( " How quantum logic makes sense of human irrationality " by George Musser ).
Musatov, Martin Michael said:
I think this means it worked.
Welcome to
Open Anthropology Cooperative
© 2020 Created by Keith Hart. Powered by