No, that's irony.

Still not seeing a paradox — Banno

The paradox lies in the irony. :lol:

No, seriously how can you create a non-zero interval out of length pieces that have zero length? By taking infinitely many? How you do that? You might counter they don't have zero length and it merely approaches zero, but that begs the question. If the distance between two points decreases, the distance will get zero and they touch. The paradox is that they never touch while able to break on through.

Exactamundo! Try getting hillary to appreciate all that science has done for him :roll: — universeness

Yes. Thanks to that I have happy dreams about destruction. And now I feel it getting near, what else to thank for a quick death I'm to much a coward for to do myself? :lol:

Does the fact that its the ANTIelectron that's positively charged not mess up your pure conjecture? — universeness

Your attempt to point to contradictions and inconsistencies doesn't hold up. The anti electron is anti negative, so a love electron. But when meeting another positron, they hate each other. Only opposites attract. That's why I love my wife. She's ugly and stupid! :lol:

In my humble opinion, evil is just biological (pest) control. :snicker: — Agent Smith

The spray?

so the paradox is that Wolfram mathworld has a different definition to you — Banno

Is that a paradox? Don't think so. There has never been a mathematical object as paradoxically as the infinitesimal.

Then why does Wolfram say
...they are some quantity that is explicitly nonzero and yet smaller in absolute value than any real quantity. — Banno

Because infinitesimals are paradoxical.

The vast majority of all humans will dies very quickly in a full nuclear exchange, thanks to Science!
For most victims, nuclear war offers a quicker death than conventional war.
3m — universeness

Yes. A-bombs are only human! Only those who survive die very slowly, while not being involved in the battle at all!

But the question is does it exist as a 'force of evil — universeness

That's not the question. It's a fact.

The paradox is that infinitesimals have zero length.

discovers this secret of morality deserves not one, not two, but an ∞[/i]ofNobelPrizes.<br/><br/><spanclass="RiceBallRiceBallSnicker"><span>:snicker:</span></span> — Agent Smith

Damned brother Agent! You astound me every time! :grin:

War is caused by humans and nature invokes science through the human tendency to ask qustions — universeness

War is caused by humans, off course. But there are different means for waging it. Based on science it turns into pure evil.

My worry is that if you read Lavinia's story of where the wind comes from you might suggest to others that her story may in fact have been true, originally, as the first cause of all wind but now that god just lives in heaven and is entertained by watching us. :rofl: — universeness

Don't worry. The gods enjoy the wind they see blowing from caves! :grin:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, it must be...a duck — Agent Smith

Or uncle Tom dressed like a duck, quacking like a duck, and swimming like a duck! It gets difficult when it comes to flying away though... :smile:

As we know, Zeno's paradoxes are about infinity. Modern math has "no problem" with Zeno's paradoxes of Dichotomy, the Arrow or the Tortoise as it uses limits (or the infinitesimal). — ssu

The paradox lies in the infinitesimals.

Yeah ooooookkkkaaayyyyy! If we go extinct by full nuclear war then, that will be a godly act of Universal love in your mind. After all, according to you, love kills. — universeness

War is hate! And the way its performed nowadays, caused by science and its mive away from nature.

No — universeness

Yes. Like the Higgs mechanism.

The asteroid that was attracted to Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs was an act of Universal love? — universeness

Love kills! We wouldnt have been here if that didnt happen!

So two attracting poles of magnets love each other — universeness

Yes. Basic, simple pure love. The longing to be together.

paradoxes break math
— Agent Smith

No, it doesn't. 2+2 still makes 4, regardless of Russell. — Banno

Yes they do.

The paradox is that approximations in math are the exact solution. An apparent contradiction. A oaradix, eeehhh... paradox.

humans are clever animals — Tom Storm

We are animals? Sometimes, I say this to my wife. Sometimes she agrees...

From what I understand, intelligent design isn't considered a scientific theory because it can't be refuted. — T Clark

And the big bang can be refuted? Why should science be refutable? What if you just know the truth?

Intelligent Design - A Valid Scientific Theory?
— Paulm12


No. — Banno

Yes. It depends on the theology used.



As expected... :lol:

Maybe as a philosophical ToE it makes sense, but not as a physical. After all, he says physical models and theories belong to the context. His reality concerns the patterns of clicks. Certain things when asking, he very cleverly evaded. Or directed them to his context. I have to say, it was pretty consistent (if that is an advantage in the first place, but Im sure his judges think so).

Cite a single unique, repeatable, prediction "ID" makes — 180 Proof

The only thing the gods have intelligently designed, in a long collective effort that many drove to despair, but which unexpectedly took a glorious turn (due to a foolish philosopher god and lazy sloth animal god) and resulted in the (almost...) perfect elementary stuff for an eternally repeating material universe to appear. It took a long time to design that right stuff. A suitable quantum vacuum, with the right particles and the right coupling constants, and right divine charges, was eventually approved for creation by the wise delphin gods. And when the word was spoken, FLASH!, there it was. The rest is history. And future, fir that matter.

I mean, there is a plethora of material patterns to be seen in our world. Forms that show coherence without the parts having causal connections. Held coherent by common causes, holonomic coherent constraints, absorbing energy, transforming, evolving away from thermodynamic equilibrium. There is resonance between two worlds, on both sides of the epistemic cut, covered by a Markov or Friston blanket. The outside of the physical world is projected continuously into ia mental counterpart on the other side. It's on the cut itself where physical causation meets logical necessity.

I'm sure you will find it's not nearly the slam-dunk you're saying it is. — Wayfarer

Haha! No indeed not. Is that bad?

you ever studied philosophy — Wayfarer

Yes.

Says who? — Wayfarer

Says I. Give me one example of a logical necessity. I can point to a natural process corresponding to it.

No offense, but your opinion has no bearing as well. All logical necessities are based on physical causes and effects. Maybe some logical necessities apply to the laws governing the objects in the causal processes, but your logical necessities will always follow the laws of nature. Your logical necessities have no impact.

other than the fatal flaw of not being about physics — jgill

You got it exactly right!

About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head. — Tobias

As a physicist, I can say something about it. I have looked over the math. He uses Hestenes's spacetime physics formalism and transplants quantum mechanics to experimental practice ("practice states", as states in a Hilbdrt space or even wider, a Fock space) and Tūring machines. The observer (the singleton, as he rather impersonally calls it), math, physical models, theories, are all part of a context. A context to his "absolute" reality. The reality of clicks in an experiment, programs, and Türing machines to let them run on and operate on the "clicks". He made quite some errors in the math, but not substantial. Mostly wrong indices, or two times the same expression for different things, or make-up errors. There was no real quantum gravity present. He used the classical Einstein Hilbert action, from which a gauge theory for classical general relativity follows, not the quantum version. He used an entropic approach to information, but the point is that this cant be applied to experimental outcome. Basically he projected QM on experimental outcomes and used maximum entropy to maximize a measure for a kind of experimental Hilbert space to include all possible experiments. So it's no wonder that the Born rule automatically follows, as he put that in in the first place. He proposed an interference experiment to show quantum gravity, but that experiment shows he has not a truly good understanding of basic quantum mechanics and when I helped him clearing up the math he used I thought how he could not see those obvious things himself before publishing. He had the tendency to pull all your physical thoughts into his "context" while actually, from the POV of real physics, it are his notions of the observer, the Türing machines, the clicks, and the programs that are the context. Though I believe that even computer programs are considered context. Most of his math is just stated and pulled in straight from the books. He has done a few calculations himself, mainly a lot of e powers. And he uses a lot of tuples and matrices to offer experiments, which he transformed to mere sentences and symbols, to fit the math. It's a cold theory without a personal touch. No new and interesting physics and a suggestion for an experiment from which nothing about quantum gravity can be deducted. Believe me, if that were the case then we would have known. Many clicks, little hot licks! But my spacetime physics formulation got an impulse. Much math, easy math, but not one inch of physics.

In short, it's no wonder quantum mechanics follows from his "ToE" if he has put it in in the first place. Quantum gravity is nowhere to be seen. The math is used for the wrong subject matter, as the thermodynamical entropy can't be applied to experimental "states". The theory is impressive at first sight (mainly because of the math, but that is more of a diversion here) but at closer look it's an attempt to draw the whole world within his view. Which would be no problem if he could relativize but he truly thinks it's the only absolute reality, while in reality there are many. The first encounter made me sit up. Could it be...? But no... And J already knew that it couldn't be, because I know how reality functions at the fundamental level, and how the big bang came to be. I thought about it all my life 36 years long (well, a bit less of course). Away from the scientific community, which might be exactly why. Of course I absorbed known physics. And recently it fell all into place.

Logical rules (such as the law of the excluded middle) are known a priori. — Wayfarer

Don't think this is the case, in my humble opinion. Logical rules have their base in the material world. A gas in empty expands or implodes. It can't stay in between, if no gravity is present. The excluded middle. A drop of milk in coffee temporarily has a nice shape. But chaos takes over. Only true life maintains dynamic shape. The logical rule associated? Entropy. Cause and effect.

What's the distance? An infinitesimal. Do you really think of particles as circles on cylinders? A reference would help. — jgill

The distance between two circles on top of each other is not zero. There are points on both circles that lay a diameter apart. So if we consider the particles as circles (in the 1D case) they can never get at zero distance. Nor can they form a singularity, which solves the black hole for singularity.

"The marble index
Of the mind forever"

The pleasure is mine! :wink:

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts — universeness

Sorry universeness, but here you are parroting the so-called experts. Not observable doesn’t mean virtual. We can imagine them. The moment you try to observe them, they become one of the external legs in Feynman diagrams and then they are not virtual anymore. So in a sense, the assumption that they are virtual is a hallucination, a dogma

Yes, only relations exist — Joshs

What about the Einzelgänger, who has moved away from any sort of relation? Will he get lost in space, diluted into oblivion, like a single particle in the empty void, only the virtual in the vacuum to play with?

Theology is thinking for religion; Philosophy of religion is thinking of religion. The former attempts to find a good foundation for theistic doctrines, the latter examines it. :snicker: — Agent Smith

Finally, the voice of rational, cool reason, offering clear insight. :cool: :ok:

Worries and happiness have no place in the dandelion fluff float. One just floats through life, not being busy, not acting while acting. Life floats by while my flow floats by life. There is no cause no effect, no good no bad, no intention, no impact, no force, no pressure. Just the beating of the heart, the voices and colors of the mind, in full understanding of the colors and voices of the world in which they flow. The busy man is changed in the unbussines of natural transformation, denying itself while being.

And then one realizes someone pisses in your milk and tries to steal your honey. And that someone could be me...

Ah! So near oh cosmos!

To unhappy people, there's nothing more annoying than happiness. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Couldn't agree more! ZzzoneiroCosm, that's quite a name!

Yes! You're right. I thought you see the interaction as a first, from which charge is derived. But they are a simultaneity, a contemporary.

Thanks for reading my words. Really appreciate. I was expecting scepticism or cynism, or dunno what.

:smile:

It's truly how I like to go through life. The conscious striving for it seems, at least for me, a hindrance. I've experienced such "dandelion fluff" feeling a few times in my life. But they came at unexpected moments and psychologists label it "the manic state of the bipolar". Dear mother of god... The first time I experienced it was during a psychosis. Which was rightly labeled as such, as I saw in hindsight! My level of consciousness was not too high then. Now I am conscious about such states, even when a psychotic part is involved (which makes it the question if it's truly a psychosis). During those dandelion episodes, it feels as if no efforts are made, as if the playing is what you are, as if borders have evaporated. Which is quite annoying for other people sometimes, though no evil is meant. It seems though that these episodes don't arrive anymore. But who knows. And maybe I'm dandelion right now... :smile: