For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
My understanding is that information may become more difficult to reconstruct over time but it's still theoretically possible, with the situation least clear around what happens inside black holes.
Why do we have to have an assumption of absolutely nothing when there is absolutely nothing?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:46 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:18 pmWhich is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 4:23 pmI treat everything as "pointers" to stand as referents to anything and ignore the actual facts they point to.
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
The numbers can act as indeterminate realities. For us, they are just labels we can use to identify everything as though in closed boxes. Instead of opening these boxes, we treat them as 'pointers' and graphically represent them as points in a geometric way. Physics is the manifestation of such a similar model regardless of it seeming to be 'abstract'. This is because we describe reality ONLY through abstractions based upon sensations indirectly. When we define some sensation of what we observe, the consistent patterns define what we presume are 'laws' of reality. But why would or should reality OBEY if it has no mind?
My proposed approach relies on first demonstrating that given no truths, some (finite truths), or an infinity of them (or a count of x, where x = infinity^x, that can define infinite levels of infinities). Exhausting these possibilities proves that with respect to Totality, ALL things are either one of these. The finite option is out without presuming a SPECIAL Universe (or multiverse) that is uniquely true of Totality. It would suggest some potential 'god' or other mysterious realities; But then this begs its own rationale infinitely without leading to either some other higher essence or the infinities of the other options themselves. If the infinite option is true, then each finite possibility is covered AND has to include an Absolute Nothing. But Absolute Nothing is the only possible 'apriori' reality that is at LEAST certain. This is where I justify this fact both logically and to EACH subjective mind's capacity to reason this. This makes it both valid AND sound, and thus at least certainly true of physics. When Absolute Nothing is true, then it is also false and leads back to an Absolute Infinity of possibilities.
This is where I then assign EACH possible truth a 'pointer' and represent it as a unique point. If, continuing with a screen analogy, we imagine for any sized rectilinear shape that represents a world, have each pixel (point) be represented as perfectly unique colors, then we arbitrarily begin with ANY arrangement of these pixels as one of the many possibilities for each position. That is, if we have a world of only 4x4 screen, we have distinctly 16 colors and 16! (16 factorial is a very big number) of possible arrangements. Then, imagine we allow for 'change' to be defined by the way we can arrange any set of these whole images together.
Most sets of images can be represented as a "non-patterned" moving picture to us viewing the monitor. The changes here are of the whole pixels TRADING positions because we assigned each its own unique color or shade. The ones that 'swap' in a pattern we deem tangent to their prior positions, demonstrates how reality operates. That is, all our world needs to express what we see is to have each point moving by trading positions in some way to other tangent pixels.
Note that this simplified two-dimensional model doesn't suffice. We need a way to define 'dimensions'. I did this earlier here but not precisely nor with images. All you do is begin with a few points. Four suffice to describe this concept. Let one point represent an 'origin' and three others be surrounding this. One of the points is a 'source' swap, one is a 'destination' swap, and the third is a dormant OPTION or 'alternative'. Extend this to EACH point and where no point is permitted to swap beyond this or in loops. [I can draw this later for here.] The alternative is a dimension and the other two are what I'll call the "Normal" or original route.
We imagine first that from a given arrangement, the 'next' (second) frame can swap only two points. It is arbitrary where we start and choose the swap. But it can only swap positions 'tangent' to another position AND that only have the three options. The next frame after that can trade from both ends of the first pair of swapped points but they cannot simply trade the same two original points. They dynamically creates a 'line' (not necessarily 'straight') that grows from its original first pair outwards.
Now this demonstration can be done in many different sets of ways defining different line 'stories'. Picture that we only have a black screen that uses 'white' pixels to represent the swapping points. Then we'd see random lines being drawn (like a screen saver) that originates randomly from any point and grows from that seed in any direction. The 'screen' that would be required for the three point presentation thus would not be 'square' pixels, but rather triangular-like ones. In this model we wouldn't be able to actually run this because no growing 'line' can be described as running back into the same point.
While this seems odd, you can use this to define any infinite possible worlds with any number of dimensions you wish. The dimensions would be 'relative' to each point and be sufficient at least to DESCRIBE all possible multidimensional worlds. OUR is one of these patterned worlds.
My theory actually goes all the way to describe what literal shapes particles take and have a rationale way to express how all these interact to formulate the manifested reality we see up to the first elements!
The thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...
Day to day science is fundamentally instrumentalist. To make things work, scientists use the models that work. It doesn't really matter whether they are true. We know that Newton's inverse square law is not 'true', but it is perfectly functional if you want to send men to the moon.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 am...some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these.
Absolutely. I guess what I'm trying to understand is what domain your theory covers that others don't. In what way is it bigger or better?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amGiven theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.
Great that it works for you. You have my fullest respect, because as far as I can see, you have worked hard and honestly to achieve it, but if you want to share it with others, yer gonna have to put it in language they understand.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amI found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
There really is nothing to "work" out, nor hard to work out anyway, as the actual and real Truth of things is very easy to see and understand, that is; once you know how to be completely OPEN, and so can make OBSERVATIONS, from that perspective. For example, it is very easy to observe "far away" galaxies receding away from us and so that means that they are expanding apart. But putting this into words so that "others" are Truly able to understand this is another matter.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 amThe thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...Day to day science is fundamentally instrumentalist. To make things work, scientists use the models that work. It doesn't really matter whether they are true. We know that Newton's inverse square law is not 'true', but it is perfectly functional if you want to send men to the moon.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 am...some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these.Absolutely. I guess what I'm trying to understand is what domain your theory covers that others don't. In what way is it bigger or better?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amGiven theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.Great that it works for you. You have my fullest respect, because as far as I can see, you have worked hard and honestly to achieve it, but if you want to share it with others, yer gonna have to put it in language they understand.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amI found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
Take it from me: that is harder than working all this shit out in the first place.
I have to say that it drives me insane how many people assume that scientific theory is decided by a social media style hunch, ignoring the incredible rigour applied and the amount of work needed to retain that rigour.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 amThe thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...
Some people also feel frustrated that just because a theory has the word 'scientific' before that it then somehow makes it true, right, and/or correct.Greta wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 pmI have to say that it drives me insane how many people assume that scientific theory is decided by a social media style hunch, ignoring the incredible rigour applied and the amount of work needed to retain that rigour.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 amThe thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...
[Good. Your post conserved what I edited out later. I added images and then thought the ones I created for this post later wouldn't work without MORE explanation.]Age wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:07 amWhy do we have to have an assumption of absolutely nothing when there is absolutely nothing?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:46 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 4:18 pm Which is fine, but when someone tells you they don't understand your nomenclature, it doesn't help if you replace that with symbols. My symbolic logic is functional, albeit rusty, and without busting a gut, your thesis appears coherent. But it's the nature of logic and maths that 'facts' can be ignored; the criterion is validity, rather than soundness. So, I accept that your argument is valid. What are you claiming are the sound premises? What is the universe made of that can have lines, curves, spirals, spin and whatnot in it?
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
The numbers can act as indeterminate realities. For us, they are just labels we can use to identify everything as though in closed boxes. Instead of opening these boxes, we treat them as 'pointers' and graphically represent them as points in a geometric way. Physics is the manifestation of such a similar model regardless of it seeming to be 'abstract'. This is because we describe reality ONLY through abstractions based upon sensations indirectly. When we define some sensation of what we observe, the consistent patterns define what we presume are 'laws' of reality. But why would or should reality OBEY if it has no mind?
My proposed approach relies on first demonstrating that given no truths, some (finite truths), or an infinity of them (or a count of x, where x = infinity^x, that can define infinite levels of infinities). Exhausting these possibilities proves that with respect to Totality, ALL things are either one of these. The finite option is out without presuming a SPECIAL Universe (or multiverse) that is uniquely true of Totality. It would suggest some potential 'god' or other mysterious realities; But then this begs its own rationale infinitely without leading to either some other higher essence or the infinities of the other options themselves. If the infinite option is true, then each finite possibility is covered AND has to include an Absolute Nothing. But Absolute Nothing is the only possible 'apriori' reality that is at LEAST certain. This is where I justify this fact both logically and to EACH subjective mind's capacity to reason this. This makes it both valid AND sound, and thus at least certainly true of physics. When Absolute Nothing is true, then it is also false and leads back to an Absolute Infinity of possibilities.
This is where I then assign EACH possible truth a 'pointer' and represent it as a unique point. If, continuing with a screen analogy, we imagine for any sized rectilinear shape that represents a world, have each pixel (point) be represented as perfectly unique colors, then we arbitrarily begin with ANY arrangement of these pixels as one of the many possibilities for each position. That is, if we have a world of only 4x4 screen, we have distinctly 16 colors and 16! (16 factorial is a very big number) of possible arrangements. Then, imagine we allow for 'change' to be defined by the way we can arrange any set of these whole images together.
Most sets of images can be represented as a "non-patterned" moving picture to us viewing the monitor. The changes here are of the whole pixels TRADING positions because we assigned each its own unique color or shade. The ones that 'swap' in a pattern we deem tangent to their prior positions, demonstrates how reality operates. That is, all our world needs to express what we see is to have each point moving by trading positions in some way to other tangent pixels.
Note that this simplified two-dimensional model doesn't suffice. We need a way to define 'dimensions'. I did this earlier here but not precisely nor with images. All you do is begin with a few points. Four suffice to describe this concept. Let one point represent an 'origin' and three others be surrounding this. One of the points is a 'source' swap, one is a 'destination' swap, and the third is a dormant OPTION or 'alternative'. Extend this to EACH point and where no point is permitted to swap beyond this or in loops. [I can draw this later for here.] The alternative is a dimension and the other two are what I'll call the "Normal" or original route.
We imagine first that from a given arrangement, the 'next' (second) frame can swap only two points. It is arbitrary where we start and choose the swap. But it can only swap positions 'tangent' to another position AND that only have the three options. The next frame after that can trade from both ends of the first pair of swapped points but they cannot simply trade the same two original points. They dynamically creates a 'line' (not necessarily 'straight') that grows from its original first pair outwards.
Now this demonstration can be done in many different sets of ways defining different line 'stories'. Picture that we only have a black screen that uses 'white' pixels to represent the swapping points. Then we'd see random lines being drawn (like a screen saver) that originates randomly from any point and grows from that seed in any direction. The 'screen' that would be required for the three point presentation thus would not be 'square' pixels, but rather triangular-like ones. In this model we wouldn't be able to actually run this because no growing 'line' can be described as running back into the same point.
While this seems odd, you can use this to define any infinite possible worlds with any number of dimensions you wish. The dimensions would be 'relative' to each point and be sufficient at least to DESCRIBE all possible multidimensional worlds. OUR is one of these patterned worlds.
My theory actually goes all the way to describe what literal shapes particles take and have a rationale way to express how all these interact to formulate the manifested reality we see up to the first elements!
I seriously do not see what the issue is here. I also do not see why you need to, nor even want, to bring, what IS,Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 1:41 am[Good. Your post conserved what I edited out later. I added images and then thought the ones I created for this post later wouldn't work without MORE explanation.]Age wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:07 amWhy do we have to have an assumption of absolutely nothing when there is absolutely nothing?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:46 am
All of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true', some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these. Given theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
The numbers can act as indeterminate realities. For us, they are just labels we can use to identify everything as though in closed boxes. Instead of opening these boxes, we treat them as 'pointers' and graphically represent them as points in a geometric way. Physics is the manifestation of such a similar model regardless of it seeming to be 'abstract'. This is because we describe reality ONLY through abstractions based upon sensations indirectly. When we define some sensation of what we observe, the consistent patterns define what we presume are 'laws' of reality. But why would or should reality OBEY if it has no mind?
My proposed approach relies on first demonstrating that given no truths, some (finite truths), or an infinity of them (or a count of x, where x = infinity^x, that can define infinite levels of infinities). Exhausting these possibilities proves that with respect to Totality, ALL things are either one of these. The finite option is out without presuming a SPECIAL Universe (or multiverse) that is uniquely true of Totality. It would suggest some potential 'god' or other mysterious realities; But then this begs its own rationale infinitely without leading to either some other higher essence or the infinities of the other options themselves. If the infinite option is true, then each finite possibility is covered AND has to include an Absolute Nothing. But Absolute Nothing is the only possible 'apriori' reality that is at LEAST certain. This is where I justify this fact both logically and to EACH subjective mind's capacity to reason this. This makes it both valid AND sound, and thus at least certainly true of physics. When Absolute Nothing is true, then it is also false and leads back to an Absolute Infinity of possibilities.
This is where I then assign EACH possible truth a 'pointer' and represent it as a unique point. If, continuing with a screen analogy, we imagine for any sized rectilinear shape that represents a world, have each pixel (point) be represented as perfectly unique colors, then we arbitrarily begin with ANY arrangement of these pixels as one of the many possibilities for each position. That is, if we have a world of only 4x4 screen, we have distinctly 16 colors and 16! (16 factorial is a very big number) of possible arrangements. Then, imagine we allow for 'change' to be defined by the way we can arrange any set of these whole images together.
Most sets of images can be represented as a "non-patterned" moving picture to us viewing the monitor. The changes here are of the whole pixels TRADING positions because we assigned each its own unique color or shade. The ones that 'swap' in a pattern we deem tangent to their prior positions, demonstrates how reality operates. That is, all our world needs to express what we see is to have each point moving by trading positions in some way to other tangent pixels.
Note that this simplified two-dimensional model doesn't suffice. We need a way to define 'dimensions'. I did this earlier here but not precisely nor with images. All you do is begin with a few points. Four suffice to describe this concept. Let one point represent an 'origin' and three others be surrounding this. One of the points is a 'source' swap, one is a 'destination' swap, and the third is a dormant OPTION or 'alternative'. Extend this to EACH point and where no point is permitted to swap beyond this or in loops. [I can draw this later for here.] The alternative is a dimension and the other two are what I'll call the "Normal" or original route.
We imagine first that from a given arrangement, the 'next' (second) frame can swap only two points. It is arbitrary where we start and choose the swap. But it can only swap positions 'tangent' to another position AND that only have the three options. The next frame after that can trade from both ends of the first pair of swapped points but they cannot simply trade the same two original points. They dynamically creates a 'line' (not necessarily 'straight') that grows from its original first pair outwards.
Now this demonstration can be done in many different sets of ways defining different line 'stories'. Picture that we only have a black screen that uses 'white' pixels to represent the swapping points. Then we'd see random lines being drawn (like a screen saver) that originates randomly from any point and grows from that seed in any direction. The 'screen' that would be required for the three point presentation thus would not be 'square' pixels, but rather triangular-like ones. In this model we wouldn't be able to actually run this because no growing 'line' can be described as running back into the same point.
While this seems odd, you can use this to define any infinite possible worlds with any number of dimensions you wish. The dimensions would be 'relative' to each point and be sufficient at least to DESCRIBE all possible multidimensional worlds. OUR is one of these patterned worlds.
My theory actually goes all the way to describe what literal shapes particles take and have a rationale way to express how all these interact to formulate the manifested reality we see up to the first elements!
As to your response here, this is better to tackle first. If we can 'assume' it, then assumption exists which counters the test of trying to assume absolutely nothing. This is intended to SHOW that the act of thinking about it is 'contradictory' from our perspective IF the whole of Totality had a specific origin at all. We then only have either some finite fixed quantity of reality (like '42' for those familiar with "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"), OR an infinity of truths. I begin asking this to determine HOW to begin questioning reality. We don't need to prove using science uniquely what is or is not true when the mind and logic suffices to determine some facts without agreement.
I was proving that we CAN have an 'origin' or 'source' of truth about Totality without anything at all existing. The fact that an absolute nothingness also lacks 'rules', allows it to be contradictory because it has no 'law-giver' to dictate that it remain absolutely nothing. We are biased to existing and this argument is to rule out a UNIQUE finite physics to Totality as a whole. It can be either absolutely nothing or absolutely everything or anything. But it cannot be absolutely unique unless we are limiting our domain to one specific Universe recognizing the logic demands all possibilities to exist.
This is intended to initiate an argument that we CAN find a logic in principle that determines what science is deemed to be only be able to do. That is, we should in principle be able to determine what reality is made of physically in some model of reality that originates in nothing because reality HAS proven it exists EVEN IF IT WAS from nothing at all. If reality had a mind, like some 'god', then it begs what that being is made of. If reality through science, were to determine a UNIQUE theory absent some 'god' or magical physics that we don't see here and now, reality would require no laws to initiate some construct that we experience as reality 'locally'.
My theory is actually a theorem of physics. I needed to begin a proof by addressing this argument up front. While whatever theory (scientific) or theorem (logic) I might present can be wrong, in principle there has to be a means to determine what reality is made of without depending on the formalism of science. I'm not meaning science is not appropriate but that we CAN still determine things intellectually and rule out certain problems of present theories without actual NEW physical evidence. We CAN and MUST use what observations of science has or is doing to aid in demonstrating how reality works, but we cannot assume the INTERPRETATIONS upon those observations are correctly inferred, even if agreed to by most. Reality doesn't take a vote by people's opinions to determine what the reality is.
So I am originating this theory by showing that Totality as a whole has to be X, such that X equals an infinity to the power of X. This then means to demonstrate a proof by assuming everything. Then our particular world is something that we can deduce by demonstrating how it can be DESCRIBED as mere patterns that coincide with what we call 'laws' rather than try to determine what 'laws' exist top down.
My 'description', if successful, can prove what our reality IS by thought alone. But it also explains why some theories that we have today are also inappropriately developed. The Big Bang, for instance, is an incorrect interpretation over a Steady State one.
Yes it can, generally by people who have done paid their dues and deeply understand the subject.Age wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:56 amSome people also feel frustrated that just because a theory has the word 'scientific' before that it then somehow makes it true, right, and/or correct.
If it is a theory, scientific or not, then it is still some thing that can be falsified.
So what? That's the best we have.Age wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 12:56 amI am not sure how a human being could sincerely make such a bold claim like 'the Universe is expanding', especially considering that they can only observe just a fraction of the Universe, and then to claim that that observation would be a "very thoroughly checked observation" just detracts from the OBVIOUS Truth of things. Human beings just do NOT know.
I'm not talking about the observations themselves but the INTERPRETATIONS of them. ...like that the phenomena we witness as a CMBR is cosmic background radiation representing a hot origin. Whether it is or is not a 'career death' is irrelevant. Science is NOT immune to human politics nor ineligible to falling into disgrace by becoming a future religion. While I agree to science, I disagree to HOW the institution itself evolves for BEING an institute. Theories that 'work' on local phenomena that are useful to determine local chemistry, physics, and biology, are practical. What is inappropriate is to where some interpretation takes credit for some theory based on the 'fringes' (extremely large or extremely small). For instance, the Copenhagen interpretation is NOT essential to have 'owned' or copyrighted credit to the invention of the transistor. While its development can be FROM scientists who USED quantum mechanics to solve certain problems, it is not unique. If Einstein, for instance, had not come along, we will still inevitably have some similar theory that might have a different novel explanation that 'fits'. What can work suffices for local needs. But for the Cosmos, there is no reason we should require disproving prior theory to posit new ones that are more correct to reality.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 amThe thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...
I'm already understanding this. But I can disagree to whether an explanation suffices regardless of popular embracing. Also, where science CAN use their own political muscle, we can also be mislead into certain investments that are hiding some other intention. Is it wise to invest in the accelerator experiments, for instance, when the investment could be actually intended to foster a false credulity to something unnecessary? Maybe, for instance, the accelerator experiments are just means to keep many people in science employed, serve as some multi-purpose laundering of losses by investors from other things, or to the mass psychology of the investments themselves.Day to day science is fundamentally instrumentalist. To make things work, scientists use the models that work. It doesn't really matter whether they are true. We know that Newton's inverse square law is not 'true', but it is perfectly functional if you want to send men to the moon.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 am...some consistent logic which we seek validity, and the soundness is dependent upon these.
My theory demonstrates a reality that is absurdly plain and provides actual closure on some things that DON'T require the investment in the institutes we are presently putting a lot into that are contributing to a many political and economic problems. My 'domain' is Totality, not just simply our particular Universe. But while 'metaphysical' in its initial stages, it actually CAN and does provide a fit explanation of physics of our Universe without the need for ten degrees of PhDs of science be privileged to correct.Absolutely. I guess what I'm trying to understand is what domain your theory covers that others don't. In what way is it bigger or better?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amGiven theories can only create models relative to the actual realities, the best we can do is to find such a model that fits to the observations. There is no 'soundness' other than to the agreement of what is being observed. As such, any model that describes the reality suffices as long as it is complete on its domain.
Yes, thank you. I appreciate this but have run into some in some different places where this is unwelcome regardless. I will attempt to appeal to this goal but obviously can't be certain I will be able to given my own limitations.Great that it works for you. You have my fullest respect, because as far as I can see, you have worked hard and honestly to achieve it, but if you want to share it with others, yer gonna have to put it in language they understand.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amI found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
Take it from me: that is harder than working all this shit out in the first place.
I was removing the need for 'assumptions' by eliminating the exhausted possibilities. It is thus NOT an 'assumption' once examined. Also, my underlined phrase of yours is begging what is so 'easy and simply' able to be proven? Do you think I should trust you on this without explanation?Age wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:10 am I seriously do not see what the issue is here. I also do not see why you need to, nor even want, to bring, what IS,
just ANOTHER 'theory' into the equation.
Totality, (or the Universe), is infinite in size and although there may have been a bang, of some relative size, which appears to be the beginning of ALL things, that bang is OBVIOUSLY not the origin of Everything and that bang OBVIOUSLY DID not come from absolutely nothing.
The Universe (or Totality) is infinite AND eternal, from my perspective.
All of this can very easily and simply be proven True, Right, and Correct. NO 'theories, 'assumptions', nor 'beliefs' are needed anywhere.
Who and what are you responding to?Greta wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 pmI have to say that it drives me insane how many people assume that scientific theory is decided by a social media style hunch, ignoring the incredible rigour applied and the amount of work needed to retain that rigour.uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 11:50 amThe thing is, the observations are not assumed true - they are very thoroughly checked. Firstly by the people who originally make the observation, because it is career death if you make a bold claim which then turns out to be bogus.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 10:45 amAll of science is about negotiating interpreted meaning of observations that are assumed 'true'...
Given any x, is the following statement true:Age wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 12:07 amWhy do we have to have an assumption of absolutely nothing when there is absolutely nothing?Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:46 am
...
I found a way to describe reality that begins with the fact of a subjective observer with an assumption of absolutely nothing. It is 'contradictory, but is justly a reality if you use this to do something. This is 'force' in a set theoretical way sufficient to construct all things in an abstract way as Numbers.
...
Too many to list. I'm thinking that the public conversation generally had degraded. People still claiming the that the Earth is flat or that a homophobic and sexist spirit man in the sky exists.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 7:09 amWho and what are you responding to?
Yeah, I find his book good and valuable too. I wasn't sure if you were implying something I particularly said that I require defending or clarifying for coming across odd to you or someone else.Greta wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 7:55 amToo many to list. I'm thinking that the public conversation generally had degraded. People still claiming the that the Earth is flat or that a homophobic and sexist spirit man in the sky exists.
Will has presented an excellent educational resource based on current theories. If we was to depart from them, then it would be a work of speculation, not of science education. As far as I can tell he seems to have everything correct and also explained some nitty-gritty aspects of the theories that I've not seen explained before.
