Universe can't be infinite.

[Atla]

I've been thinking about QM for nearly a decade but of course I don't fully understand it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

To many of the Greeks, the connection with reality was too tenuous to be worth bothering about. Axioms were regarded as ‘self-evident truths’, dredged by pure thought from reality, and the philosophers didn’t believe the axioms could be other than they were. Believing that they were abstracted from real things like pegs and ropes was far too mundane. So Plato came to articulate the idea that all the important truths about the world could either be known to the inner eye directly, or deduced from them by pure reason. A more conservative man might have concluded that there were mathematical truths which could be derived from just about any set of rules, and observational truths about reality, and that the two were not in general the same. But intoxicated by ‘Greek Magic’ as mathematics has been called, Plato went the whole hog.

Most people, no doubt, decided that this might be true in principle, but if you wanted to know which horse could run faster, it was a lot cheaper, quicker and less intellectually taxing to race them than to sit and think about it an awful lot. Those people who had lost all their money betting on horses and also had a disposition to think, felt it was a better to solve the problem by pure thought, and looked down on those who owned the horses or bet on them. This habit has continued to the present time.

Thinking (or "pure reason") or any other armchair intellectualism without empiricism does not produce anything an engineer or an experimental physicist would call 'understanding'

As usual you misunderstand even the nature of my comment, exposing your own ignorance. With QM there is only one "horse".

[TimeSeeker]

As usual you misunderstand even the nature of my comment, exposing your own ignorance.

Naturally - I am exposing ignorance. Whether yours or mine is yet to be determined

With QM there is only one "horse".

Would that be the Copenhagen horse; or the "many worlds" horse; or the "pilot wave" horse; or the hidden variable horse?

How did yo determine that?

Mr Atla Ignoramus.

[Atla]

As usual you misunderstand even the nature of my comment, exposing your own ignorance.

Naturally - I am exposing ignorance. Whether yours or mine is yet to be determined

With QM there is only one "horse".

Would that be the Copenhagen horse; or the "many worlds" horse; or the "pilot wave" horse; or the hidden variable horse?

Mr Atla Ignoramus.

They are all one and the same horse, genius.

[TimeSeeker]

They are all one and the same horse, genius.

So you have been holding the unification theory in your back pocket all along?!?! Well fuck!

What are you waiting for? Show it to us!

Show us the Theory of Everything so physicists can stop looking.

Or just own up to your Pantheism already

[Atla]

They are all one and the same horse, genius.

So you have been holding the unification theory in your back pocket all along?!?! Well fuck!

What are you waiting for? Show it to us!

Show us the Theory of Everything so physicists can stop looking.

Or just own up to your Pantheism already

Since your brain can't process context, meaning or logic, I don't know how to tell you this, but these are all interpretations of the same horse.
Only those who don't understand what an interpretation is, would speak about unification here.

[Age]

I've been thinking about QM for nearly a decade but of course I don't fully understand it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

To many of the Greeks, the connection with reality was too tenuous to be worth bothering about. Axioms were regarded as ‘self-evident truths’, dredged by pure thought from reality, and the philosophers didn’t believe the axioms could be other than they were. Believing that they were abstracted from real things like pegs and ropes was far too mundane. So Plato came to articulate the idea that all the important truths about the world could either be known to the inner eye directly, or deduced from them by pure reason. A more conservative man might have concluded that there were mathematical truths which could be derived from just about any set of rules, and observational truths about reality, and that the two were not in general the same. But intoxicated by ‘Greek Magic’ as mathematics has been called, Plato went the whole hog.

Most people, no doubt, decided that this might be true in principle, but if you wanted to know which horse could run faster, it was a lot cheaper, quicker and less intellectually taxing to race them than to sit and think about it an awful lot. Those people who had lost all their money betting on horses and also had a disposition to think, felt it was a better to solve the problem by pure thought, and looked down on those who owned the horses or bet on them. This habit has continued to the present time.

Thinking (or "pure reason") or any other armchair intellectualism without empiricism does not produce anything an engineer or an experimental physicist would call 'understanding'

What is also known is that so called "engineers" or "experimental physicists" sometimes "coincidentally" "find" data that backs up and supports their beliefs, and/or the theories of the ones they worship and follow. These "people", in this respect, can be just as closed and influenced as any religious person can be to the ones that they worship and follow.

[TimeSeeker]

Since your brain can't process context, meaning or logic, I don't know how to tell you this, but these are all interpretations of the same horse.
Only those who don't understand what an interpretation is, would speak about unification here.

Since your brain "can process context and meaning" then I don't know how to tell you that there is no room for interpretation in logical semantics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_c ... ss_theorem

For having 4 DIFFERENT descriptions (models!) for "the same horse" is called ambiguity, is it not ?

Allow me to explain it to you in the most obnoxious way possible:

An important consequence of the completeness theorem is that it is possible to recursively enumerate the semantic consequences of any effective first-order theory, by enumerating all the possible formal deductions from the axioms of the theory, and use this to produce an enumeration of their conclusions.

Recursive enumeration of MEANING that thing which is the RESULT of interpretation?!?!?!? COOL!

And then we have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, of computer science, and of the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, recursion theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.

So recursive enumeration is computation ?!?!?

Now add 2 and 2 together. Awesome!
Fucking computer scientists. Thinking they have it all figured out.

And since we are dealing with logical models of The Universe, I guess you are wrong, huh ?

The easy way to prove me wrong is to produce the ToE ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything ).

[TimeSeeker]

What is also known is that so called "engineers" or "experimental physicists" sometimes "coincidentally" "find" data that backs up and supports their beliefs, and/or the theories of the ones they worship and follow. These "people", in this respect, can be just as closed and influenced as any religious person can be to the ones that they worship and follow.

You are speaking in general. I am right here - in front of you. In the particular.

If you have a better methodology for learning - I can't wait for you to teach it to me.

[Atla]

Since your brain can't process context, meaning or logic, I don't know how to tell you this, but these are all interpretations of the same horse.
Only those who don't understand what an interpretation is, would speak about unification here.

Since your brain "can process context and meaning" then I don't know how to tell you that there is no room for interpretation in logical semantics
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

Come back in a few years when you have at least the slightest clue about the nature of the discussion.

[TimeSeeker]

Since your brain can't process context, meaning or logic, I don't know how to tell you this, but these are all interpretations of the same horse.
Only those who don't understand what an interpretation is, would speak about unification here.

Since your brain "can process context and meaning" then I don't know how to tell you that there is no room for interpretation in logical semantics
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

Come back in a few years when you have at least the slightest clue about the nature of the discussion.

Yes, moron. The fact that we can INTERPRET QM is evidence that it is INCOMPLETE description of The Universe.

Or wrong!

I don't need a few years. I understand how Logic/Mathematics/Computation works.

[Atla]

Yes, moron. The fact that we can INTERPRET QM is evidence that it is INCOMPLETE description of The Universe.

Or wrong!

I don't need a few years. I understand how Logic/Mathematics/Computation works.

Well at least you admitted that it's incomplete, and maybe also wrong. It's only one "horse", and it's only natural that I don't fully understand it (no one does btw).

Thus contradicting, refuting yourself in every way possible, as usual, moron.

[TimeSeeker]

Well at least you admitted that it's incomplete, and maybe also wrong. It's only one "horse", and it's only natural that I don't fully understand it (no one does btw).

Thus contradicting, refuting yourself in every way possible, as usual, moron.

Contradictions don't exist, moron. So how can I contradict myself?

If I DO contradict myself then that is living proof that contradictions do exist. Which is self-contradictory to the non-existence of contradictions, moron. It's just recursive, moron Which is computation.

And you fail to acknowledge the relativity of wrong, moron.

That there is only one horse (or planet Earth) is not under dispute, moron. That we are describing the horse as accurately as possible is under dispute, moron.

Precision.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

[Atla]

Contradictions don't exist, moron. So how can I contradict myself?
...

Ok Mr. "contradictions don't exist", then I'll just have to say everytime: I'm right and you're wrong.

And there's nothing you can do about it since I don't have to acknowledge anything contradictory to whatever I say.

[TimeSeeker]

Ok Mr. "contradictions don't exist", then I'll just have to say everytime: I'm right and you're wrong.

And there's nothing you can do about it since I don't have to acknowledge anything contradictory to whatever I say.

Well done! Finally you are coming to understand how contexts work!

You cannot contradict yourself within the SAME CONTEXT. You can make a grammatical error, or a syntax error. You will even get a wrong RESULT. But you can't contradict yourself.

You can have two (or more!) contradictory CONTEXTS (frameworks!) in your mind. Like General Relativity and QM. To have two (or more!) contradictory CONTEXTS is the very definition of dualism (which you pretend to reject).

And within QM you have multiple contradictory INTERPRETATIONS. It is because they contradict EACH OTHER is why we need a ToE.

That doesn't detract even one bit that each of those theories work just fine within the DOMAIN OF THEIR APPLICABILITY. . Which a fancy phrase for CONTEXT.

GR works just fine IN THE CONTEXT of it's INTENDED applicability.
QM works just fine IN THE CONTEXT of its INTENDED applicability.

Neither QM nor GR work outside of their respective CONTEXTS, and if you attempt to treat them as universal (e.g context-free!) they contradict each other's axioms!

Which is pretty ironic, in a Universe which has no contexts, and pretty obvious to me that dualisms/pluralisms are the root cause of contradictions.

The universe is whatever the hell the universe is. Intractable is the only adjective I care to give it.
The map of the territory (your understanding of the universe) is PART OF the territory (the universe).

Yay! Recursion! Recursion is computation.

Your CONCEPTION of The Universe is subject to the laws of computation.

Your CONCEPTION of The Universe is subject to Kolmogorov's Mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

[Atla]

...

If you have contradictory contexts, your worldview is trash.
Again, you don't even understand what contexts are.
And now you are talking about contradictions after all.
You are a fucking idiot.