167 replies to this topic

[platypus]

Why do you bother with QA or anything as according to your worldview everything that happens was set in stone already at the Big Bang? 

 

BTW, did you also claim that "consciousness" does not exist?

[platypus]

Physics might be "causal" but that does not mean it's necessarily deterministic. Why take non-determinism as a dogma, I don't get it? Or perhaps this was already determined when the particles that would become "you" were still primordial hydrogen? 

[Julia36]

Quantum THoery is a joke B an actual joke by the iscievous Church warden Max Planck.

 

Playing on the word quanta  ie subjectuive view of relaity.

 

There is no quantum theory, and there is no quantum world, Physics is a contuning state and the small and the big are one. Much will be overturned, including Bhor's work and multiple worlds.

 

One law for the elephant and one law for the mouse.

 

One law for the smallest particle and one for the largest galaxy.

 

An elephant thrown onto a kae would sink.

 

A feather would float.

 

Ha! says the msichievous church warden..one law for the elephant and another one for the feather!

 

Max Planck.

 

Even he was vehemently opposed to a theory of indeterminism, all his life.

http://www.adherents...Max_Planck.html

 

 

[platypus]

Resurrection of every thought of everyone in 7 years via computing? Boy will you be disappointed, I predict it will never happen and that we see no real progress towards that goal in the next 100 years. But I'm happy to make a small bet about resurrection in 7 years to make it interesting. If there's a resurrection module in Windows 12 SP1 in 2022 you win! 

[Julia36]

Why do you bother with QA or anything as according to your worldview everything that happens was set in stone already at the Big Bang? 

 

BTW, did you also claim that "consciousness" does not exist?

 

You are helpless but to bother.

 

eg if you decide not to bother, that was predestined.

 

No No big bangs, lots of bangs.

 

There is no beginning, no end and no limits to scale sizes.

[Julia36]

Human thought does not constrain nature in any way.

 

Determinsitically, contraignt outside Nature is impossible.

 

This prnciple you have missed which shoudl encourage you:

 

Determinism may not be falsifiable and is therefroe not a valid scientific theory. (I hold that it is, some Quantum THeoriest hold that it isn't)

 

Falsifiability you'll recall was shown to be  a necessary requirement of a theory under Popper's rules.

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Falsifiability

 

"The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience."

 

However some parts opf the cpbbled topgether Quantum THeory show iot ios not a theory at all, for it s incabable of falsificvation. By this rationale:

 

if the next thing to happen is random, then it is requirement of logic  this next thing is unpredictable.

 

ie 123456--> is predictable so it pi which s the same each time it is calculated (all you have to do to predict the next digit of p[i is to run a p[ip calculation one step ahead of your prediction!

 

Randomness means you cant say WHAT would come next.

 

It would be impossible top say if anything or nothing come next, or an elepahnt or a teapot cricling mars came next.

 

If you contenmd that is outside the experiment and you only meant to contain your enquirey to numbers I must insist that containment thwarts randomness.

To sustain your arguement you are then forced like the roultte systm gambler in the casino to modify your systm after each contradicting spin of the ball.

 

Indeed this is what the laws of science are.

Exacrtly so.

 

To claim everything is random within a given class

 

is a different argument, and I shoudn't call that random but sometrhing else.

 

What I dont know.

 

To argue one could NEVER know what number came next is altogether different from saying we couldn't say now what number came next...except that it had to be one of 10 number ion denary.

 

I suspect THYAT is what you are arguing happens in Quantum Theory, and only probilities are accurate because you dont know how to predict exactly.

 

In roulette we can predict whcih part of the whell the ball will land on average over any spins,

 

buit not exactly whcih number, and the resaon for this is the lack of information.

 

Which is the same in QT: the difficulty is how to measure, becase traditional techniques have failed. NOT Cause & Effect have failed.

 

 

The QT model is where everything is only probabilities, including the croupier which is now a cat and not a cat, depending on the observer.

 

 

But let me ask you, what is the difference between Causation and Probability?

Edited by the hanged man, 12 September 2015 - 11:47 AM.

[Julia36]

I originally missed this gem:  "One cant even use analogy in philosophical argument." 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming he means that because there are fallacies like weak analogy, then that means analogies have no legitimate place in arguments.   

 

 

Hanged Man - Arguments from analogy have long been recognized as useful inductive arguments.  We also see echoes of analogy in certain sciences (because science is founded in logic & philosophy).  Of course, the analogies have to be done properly.

 

Because a thing has long been used in no way makes it true.

In fact science may be a series of revolutions interspersed with corrections on a map of the environment of rice pudding in the stomach of a cat.

 

 

Who decides what analogioes are?

 

A true metaphone, it can be argued,  is mathetatical, and applies the doctrine of equality.

 

But you're correct, I challenge the doctrine of equality.

 

When doing logic @ Oxford University, I told the tutor I wished to leave the course after 1 hour.

 

the dip[lomatic reason I petitioned was that it was above me.Inwardly I was sure he was mistaken in his methods and conclusions, and it would muddle my thionking.

 

His response was to pin me against the wall in front of the other and scream:

 

"Do you accept x=y?"

 

Inwardly I was sure he was an unrecognised criminal luinatic, but in desperation I succumed to  the toad of philosophical logic, inductve reasoning,and whimped "Yes".

 

Whereon he released me saying "Sit down. You will pass this course."

 

 

 

Equality thus used, necessaily needs an agent. Inductive logic is spurious and chaotic. Therefiore it is not logic at all but submission to conversion to an overarching language.

eg in buying and selling

 

This iced bun costs £100 to buy.

 

I can buy Big Bertha for £100 in the Lamb and Flag.

 

therefore Big Bertha is an iced bun.

 

In which case I ought to be able to store Big Bertha in my freezer and serve her with tea to my aunt on Sunday.

 

But that is not the case.

 

The docrtine of equality is so handicapped that the instances when it applies are not ubiquitous, & are narrowed so far as to be unuseful.

 

Were you to protest that Big Berha and iced buns are irrelevant and the doctrine is about

 

£100 = £100

 

I quiz why would you need to have a doctrine to show £100 is £100 in the first place?

 

 

 

It's no use looking to the Americans nor Autralians for help. The one doesn't do philosophy and the other doesn't know what it is.

 

I chanced it and contacted an Englishman in America, a descendant of Geoge Boule and unfortunately for him, famous.

 

His reply was No.

 

That was at least clear.

 

However because is a logician, I still have no idea what he was no-ing about. Presumably the former colonies have reduced him to this.

 

 

Do you see how IRRELEVANT these ad hominems are?

Edited by the hanged man, 12 September 2015 - 12:30 PM.

[Julia36]

A wise man once said “ If you can recall the past you can predict the future” This is of course absolutely correct (if you can be aware of all the parameters) and nothing else interferes with the same cause and effect pattern occurring again.

 

In any case science has proven that energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. Ie; when an atom (matter) splits energy is created and when sunlight (energy) enters a leaf with a few added nutrients matter such as wood etc is created.

 

You cant say a wise man once said...it is arguement from doubtful authority.

Nor can you then agree with the straw man you have just yurself set up, makling 2 of you therefore hoping to have hgathered support fro your (own) arguement.

 

science has proven that energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form

 

Thales did it mate. .

And he refused to discuss his work like Newton, Darwin, Galileo and Einsten because it was revolutionary, and was ridiculed.

 

Water is in fact everything and it's easy to show that using Platypus rules of equivilance

[Julia36]

I dont use phiosophy because we're American. We have creationism and science.

 

Duckykins you holds that induction is useful or allowable to find truths?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

for instance

 

"All things move." is an irrefutable maxim of philosophy.

 

By your logic of induction you can prove that bugs bunny can swim in the air by will power.

 

Quantum Theory cant break the laws of observation and measurement, set up famously by Galileo and hammered into the world by Newton when he was trapped in Cambridge to escape the plague.

 

Yet in thios tinniest of 'mechanics' an excuse is made why this needn't be done....AND THE WHOLE WORLD HAS BOUGHT IT !

 

 

 

[platypus]

 

To claim everything is random within a given class

 

is a different argument, and I shoudn't call that random but sometrhing else.

 

What I dont know.

 

Well isn't that what happens in QT? There possible outcomes are perfectly defined (they can be said to form a "class") but it's impossible to predict which outcome will happen.

[Julia36]

 

 

To claim everything is random within a given class

 

is a different argument, and I shoudn't call that random but sometrhing else.

 

What I dont know.

 

Well isn't that what happens in QT? There possible outcomes are perfectly defined (they can be said to form a "class") but it's impossible to predict which outcome will happen.

 

 

 

O absolutely. That is what Propabilioty is, and it is a subset of Causation and  Causation of Groups. Where is better explored it would have to produce unambiguous Cause and Effect ie that is observable, and it obviously will do that when we know how to observe the very small.

 

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

 

==============================================================

 

 

My objection to Quantumm Thoery is that it pouts Explanation beofre Observation, and gets round that by saying observation is impossible in Quantum Theory.

 

I dop n ot opbject to the statistics, maths, experiments or methods....just the opposite i hail them as great achievements of towering intellect:

 

I adamately object to putting Explanation beofre Observation.

 

ie to say non-causality ( a foolish idea only advancable if one ignores Galileo's 1st maxim) applies in the sub-atomic scales, without being able to state from observation WHY it does.

 

 

Obervation THEN  Explanation is one of the defining, and most iomportant maxims in the history of the world.

 

QT dismisses it as not applicable: it's reasoning? sub-atomics must have different laws not involving Cause and Effect.

 

This is not science but superstition.

 

Observe before you explain!  There has been a revolyion 500 years ago where explanations are refused until you can observe what's going on.

 

 

 

It's as if QTists had not read Sherlock Holmes which is based on this maxim.

 

 

 

 

Forensics is a branch of Observation, and Observation PLUS Cause and Effect gives conclusions which are not at all obvious and look miraculous when produced.

 

in fact they lok wrong, mystical immagiative speculative or absurd ...like Quantum Archaeology which shows clearly you can resurrect the dead.

 

But Quantum Thoery doesn't do this. It puts explanations on insufficient or no observations purposting to shouit Cause and Effect doesn't work in thwe sub-atomic world.

 

When asked what does..they conform with the confidence of an ignoramus..  NOTHING does, and as an oafterthought..Probability.

 

And then proceeds to demonstrate prediction with eg the double split experiment...which works the same every time it is done, demonstrating- though they haven't realised this...Cause and Effect.

 

It is outrageous.

 

The world is determined.

 

Everythng moves.

 

Everything is a reactant and precursor to Cause and Effect.

 

 

It's the little things. the butterfly effect (called Chaos THeory, but actually complexity since there is no Chaos which is a pre-science terms from religion)

 

Froma few seemingly insignificant small facts you can actuarely decduce a massive & hitherto impenatrably complex systems.

 

That is Cause & Effect archaeology, forensics, statostics, mathematics, medical diagnosis, police detection, legal cross-examination and true physics.

 

 

No matter HOW complex it looks.

 

Non-causation will look evidenvce of Homospaiens stupidity to coming A.I.'s (arguement to the future)

 

 

 

Chaos or complexity?

 

Edited by the hanged man, 14 September 2015 - 11:35 AM.

[Julia36]

NOT non=causal. P{resently unmeasrable and unobservable.

 

QT is absurd and shoud be halted immediately on College syllabuses, it's propoents sent on basic sceince and logic courses.

 

No randomness, no chaos,  no indeterminism. Nothing can be underdetermined per se,

 

And it is iompossible to have probability and yet no Causality.

 

Cause & Effect apply to everything that can be observed & measured  WITH NO EXCEPTION.

 

True for hte star, the insect and the sub-atomic thing.

 

 

 

 

Below Absolutely WRONG

 

Below

 

Absolutely RIGHT

 

Edited by the hanged man, 14 September 2015 - 11:56 AM.

[Julia36]

 

 

 

My opinion is that anyone believing in the Quantum Theory should be sterilized.

 

 

 

Just wanted to make sure nobody missed this.

 

 

 

This is Quantum Theory.  It should be struck off all school and collecge and university syllabuses. and halt the TRILLIONS in money that has been poured into it, for it is clearly, palpably and IREEFUTABLY flase!

(I hope you get your spillcheker fixed )

 

 

Sam Harris' Cartoon shows 2 things..the absurdity of Explanation before Observation and also that Sam Harris is a great philsopher.

 

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 14 September 2015 - 12:08 PM.

[Julia36]

This is another exmaple of ad hominem:

 

The idea stuff converts to "Energy" is just gibberish. That is a high level description of complex processes and a classic example of Explanation preceeding Observation, or defering to philsophy in ignorance of science.

 

Einstien's "My formula" E=MC/\2

was not his fomula - I doubt if he understand undergraduate mathematics-

and was in use before he failed his doctorate and ripped people's ideas off in the patent office.

 

 

 

As indeed is the quaint idea everythig opnverts to'radiant heat'

 

There is NO final state. No initial state. No spontaneous creation nor annihilation.

Everything is in movements and argument otherwise is esclusively from micro science.

Science has to studied at micro, meso, and macro scales and viewed as interchangable continuous perspectives.

 

Matter and anti matter do no annihilate nor come into being without other stuff being created.

 

there are no blanks or holes in the cosmos.

 

Information is incapable of being detroyed. Black holes do not suck everythuign in and b reak down the laws of physics.

No chaos, no death and no God.

 

Edited by the hanged man, 14 September 2015 - 12:07 PM.

[platypus]

So why does QT work so well, if it's incorrect? 

[Julia36]

It doesn't only the statistics work so well.

 

The probability works so well.

 

the Causation is non-existant in Quatum Theory, and it;s show acse invention, the Quantum Computer has hit the combinatiorial explosion, and is concentrating on sub system algorithms fx error corrections, and despite predictions, has not succeeded in calculating more than a fruit fly.

 

However it may. And even if it does, the problem would still remain: how can there be laws if there is no Causation?

 

Of coutrse there cant.

 

 

 

CAVEAT 

 

I dont know enough to debate the engineering in quantum systems, so i offer to discuss where QT works ONCE there....microcircuits.

 

 

 

eg go through a QT so called success with me and if you can show it works ONCE I will conceed it is a consistant theory and therefore a theory.

 

At the moment when I trun away I think the moon is still there and has objective reality independent of the observer:

Quantum "Theory" states it is only there when I'm looking at it, which is the old tree falling in a forest , chestunt of classical philosophy.

 

Let me ask you Platypus...do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it, or that things only exist when being veiwed by a Platypus?

 

 

 

Quantum 'theory' is the work of the egoist and draws every egoist in amateur science to it.

 

 

More: because information is incapable of being detroyed whether or not we are capable of presently retrieving it, there can be no final state, no death.

 

Man did not build the world.

 

Man is not the centre of the world.

 

It could never be logicaly argued man is the highest intelligence in the cosmos as we have proved it to be eternal and unbounded (M theory) by mathematics and by measurement (Universe cosmology.)

 

Nothign is worse for sceince than a theory which has got accepted and for which tere is not evidence.

 

QT is a so-called explanation of what ios going on.

 

But it hasn't been observed (observation INCLUDES) measurement,

and a theory is premature: that's why it is barking.

 

Edited by the hanged man, 14 September 2015 - 03:01 PM.

[platypus]

Comment: Quantum Theory does not say that "the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it". QT tells you how the wave-function evolves, by the way in a completely deterministic way. Interpretations of QT are not QT, but philosophy. 

[platypus]

I found this, very interesting:

 

"A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics"

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf

 

it looks like deterministic views like yours are rare these days but they do exist..

 

"Quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments. Yet, nearly 90 years after the theory’s development, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory’s foundational building blocks."

 

There is also the "shut up and calculate"-school of interpretation, i.e. no interpretation. perhaps we should stick to that for now? 

Edited by platypus, 15 September 2015 - 01:59 PM.

[Julia36]

Comment: Quantum Theory does not say that "the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it". QT tells you how the wave-function evolves, by the way in a completely deterministic way. Interpretations of QT are not QT, but philosophy. 

 

I was referencing  Einstein.

 

But I'll bite.

 

You think the moon is there when you dont look at it, but other things disappear when your back is turned

 

--- becase the are smaller?

[Julia36]

I found this, very interesting:

 

"A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics"

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf

 

it looks like deterministic views like yours are rare these days but they do exist..

 

"Quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments. Yet, nearly 90 years after the theory’s development, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory’s foundational building blocks."

 

There is also the "shut up and calculate"-school of interpretation, i.e. no interpretation. perhaps we should stick to that for now? 

 

NB I dont see the haged man nor Platypus referenced ONCE in the article???

 

I think that's best. I'm glad you have concluded that, because it is easily the most productive.

 

from now on our policy is shut up and calculate.

 

I'll wizz that off to Oslo.

 

Edited by the hanged man, 15 September 2015 - 04:48 PM.

[platypus]

 

Comment: Quantum Theory does not say that "the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it". QT tells you how the wave-function evolves, by the way in a completely deterministic way. Interpretations of QT are not QT, but philosophy. 

 

I was referencing  Einstein.

 

But I'll bite.

 

You think the moon is there when you dont look at it, but other things disappear when your back is turned

 

--- becase the are smaller?

 

I think everyone agrees that the wave-function is there all the time and it evolves deterministically. As you know, there's no agreed upon interpretation of the measurement-problem. 

[Danail Bulgaria]

How do you intend to calculate the workings of 9 billion human brains? 

[Julia36]

 

 

Comment: Quantum Theory does not say that "the Moon is not there when you are not looking at it". QT tells you how the wave-function evolves, by the way in a completely deterministic way. Interpretations of QT are not QT, but philosophy. 

 

I was referencing  Einstein.

 

But I'll bite.

 

You think the moon is there when you dont look at it, but other things disappear when your back is turned

 

--- becase the are smaller?

 

I think everyone agrees that the wave-function is there all the time and it evolves deterministically. As you know, there's no agreed upon interpretation of the measurement-problem. 

 

 

No I dont understand the universal wavelength so I cant agree with it. Npor do I know anyone who understands iot because we cant yet observe it definatively. I hope and expect that will change.

 

However we can ;look at other wavelengths and deduce by analogy in your beloved inductive logic.

I know I post in ignorance on this area  = Quantum Theory:)

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 16 September 2015 - 03:06 PM.

[Julia36]

How do you intend to calculate the workings of 9 billion human brains? 

 

Why 9 billion?

 

There are at least 106 billion people who've died since 59,000 BC

You're concern is dealt with under the Size of Calculation argument.

 

It goes like this.

 

The bigger the number, the harder it is to calculate.

 

But this is not so! The time taken to calculate a big number over a small number is not proprtional to the digits in them, or nor do computing machines factor up proprtionally to an increase in the size of calcuation!

 

 

Consider for instance a log book and read from 2 grid references.

 

Calculating 2 X 2 =?

 

and 87635t897635873683765 x 928376976239874693876923876 =?

 

is excatly the same process.

 

The beauty of the Quantum Archaeology GRID

is it can be added to without ibcreases in computing power.

 

Huge volumes of data dont exist independently but are ansolutely and only the causal products of what wnet before then, adjent to the, and after them.

 

There is no question that the human world is time symetric.

 

eg you loose you keys and so you trace by retrioduictive deduction where they must be.

 

#3:  When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.   

   Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four (1890)(Doubleday p. 111)

 

Sherlock Holmes statue Edinburgh. SH was modelled on Joseph Bell who applied Galileo and Boule and Bayes logic metrhods (asa well as others to diagnose medical acsaes, then to analyse crime scenes.

 

 

And there is no getting round that.

 

I may draw from my main work -  Superintelligence construction - without thinking,  so have unfair advantage in thsi debate  but in QA I am doing the assumptions and logic  without A.I. for fun.

 

Because I think we get get enormous biyts of resurrecion done without recourse to accelerating machine intelligence  (although A.I. will dominate ou world in teh 2020's and I think lead to a hard take-off auring 2022(.

 

Last night there was a packed lecture in London Futurists on the coming dangeres of A.I.

30-50,000 people with different knowledge of A.I. have signed a petition warnign of coming machine syatems

and groups are rising to mitigate it. The video isn't up yet.

 

 

A.I. will certainly do things beyond our imagination, and resurrection of the dead will be easy if you argue the main obstacle is size of calculation, because the hstory of Mathematics

is the history of shortcuts for big calculations!

 

That's what maths is !!!

 

shortcuts for number calculations. eg by patterns, sequences, laws, agreegation sampling etc

 

And there are many.

 

 

Contining identity,

You dont have a problem saying yes that is £1 and it is iunterchangable with another pound, and it is indeed just function and form without being absolute in identity.

 

But this invokes 2 principles which you would have to overthrow to argue that copied man is not the same identity as the original man (&  I can show there is no such thing as an original living man, which forces you away from philosophy and int the not picking world of sophism many 2nd rate philosophers slum into).

 

There principles are the principle of interchanability and the primnciple of equality.

 

For what function or purpose is a man?

 

Not evoking divinity, but in terms of reactions? What movements does a specific man make and cause, and be caused by?

 

this is indeed just one approach, but I have yet to see a better, and objections eg from David Pearce who challenged that Quantum Archaeologyw aas drafted initially in Newtionian Mechanics is easily dismissed by Tipler's onbservation that all sceuince is the inevcitable conseuquence of Newton's sceince andMUSTY follow from it: ie there is no new sceince, only an eschatology notin the relgious sense, and in thios context an unfolding or continuing of the reactive infinite cosmos, when biewed from a time model).

 

So while QA is but ione model, it can faithfully produce correct revivals of identities, and beyiond and belwo cerain scales of relevance eg 5 nanometers and 2 metres, the infrastrucrue is irreelavant.

 

A resurecteei has equal identity as a robot or a biosystem.

 

As a sphere of light or a cetepede..as long as gthe degrees of freedom - which includes the thought processes and receipts- are equal.

 

 

For instance when you can resurrect one you can resurrect many the same, doe snot invalidate the fact of physical resurrection:

 

you have just made a profit!

 

 

So I go further than just saying it's OK to coty and still be the same you,

 

I say it is ESSENTIAL to copy or you would cease to exist, and could not be you.

 

Think of the original Amoema!

Copy is presently one thing that defines a living being.

 

 

 

This is inside your body as you read this:

 

 

 

To summarize my reply:

 

1  Size of numbers is no bar to calculation because of the nature of mathematics.

 

2. Copying is intrinsic to the nature of existance, because evrything moves, changing and error correction's most efficient repair syetm is demonstrably copying.

 

There is no finality

 

Everything must be reborn as a 'copy'

 

eg

 

Caligula the God

 

 

coming soon to an Italian rresurrection Hospital with 30,00 Roman legions...

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 16 September 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[platypus]

 

Calculating 2 X 2 =?

 

and 87635t897635873683765 x 928376976239874693876923876 =?

 

is excatly the same process.

...but the latter multiplication takes a helluva lot longer than the 1st one, so your example contradicts your claims.

[Julia36]

 

 

Calculating 2 X 2 =?

 

and 87635t897635873683765 x 928376976239874693876923876 =?

 

is excatly the same process.

...but the latter multiplication takes a helluva lot longer than the 1st one, so your example contradicts your claims.

 

 

You've clearly never used a loga ruthm book or emphemeris.

It is eacly the same time to do eaither and that is my point.

 

 

[platypus]

You haven't taken into account that there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two real numbers so your lookup-table would be uncountably infinite in size.

Edited by platypus, 16 September 2015 - 04:30 PM.

[Julia36]

Nope. you use Cantorian infinity maths.

[platypus]

Nope. you use Cantorian infinity maths.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Shame on you.

[Julia36]

ho.

I learn to live with my shame:)

 

 

Pretty easy:.

Just treat aleph orders of infinity as you would  dimension theory.

 

The simplest way is simple addition of orders of magintudes, and the associated 'new'  physicsl law are inevitable deductions, which have only one way of unravelling.

 

It's just new to you Platypus, although I've pushed a little for my own uses.

start here

http://gizmodo.com/5...ion-to-infinity

 

 

There are laods of contradictions, but no more nor less proprtionately than in commonsense, and luckily you dont use human environments in maths, because we are intensely linear.

 

But the starting point in not the nature of each infinity but siomple addition of infinities so teh challenge that infitie numbers limits calculation is flase.

 

You simple symbolise the infinity eg aleph1, alreph 2 .,,,aelpph n ,,,,or aleph infinite... nand use what operators you like.

 

The essentail thing is you're reducing vastnesses to manageable symbols by the opposite of inflation.

 

It helps to believe you're bigger than infinities and bigger than maths!

 

 

ZIP..

 

Just when I'm growing in ideas my Ego comes in and pshce's me into an egosit.

 

NB ANY defence you make against present foresnsics are invalidated by future forensics.

 

Thats a law of police forensics,a dn itls confirmed everytime a new technique busts an solved crime ages old.

 

But the same with calculation limits & physics..

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 16 September 2015 - 06:29 PM.