Question Theory (?=∞) Theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nbernardini, Sep 21, 2013.

  1. nbernardini Registered Member

    4-Dimensional Expressional-Context-Dependent Quantum Economic (the study of the origin of incentive) Theory:

    Question Theory (?=∞) Theory

    Assume there are two base quantum A and B:

    A) To align your spirit (our base economic quanta) with the universe, one must understand that seeking happiness and seeking truth are one path.

    B) To judge others, one must truly believe freedom and true justice are interchangeable.

    One pre-prediction of A & B asks a specific question:
    (if A>B = ?AB (pronounced: Question AB))

    ?AB) Is anyone capable of seeking the truth and believing in freedom? (Can you see patterns and chaos simultaneously?)
    When A and B are equivalent to ?AB, two O(ptions)'s are possible answers to this question, O1 & O2:

    O1AB) if YES, then a question in your reality can be the answer.
    O2AB) if NO, then as long as there are questions, there is no answer.
    So, AB = {O1AB or O2AB,}
    But, AB ≠ {O1AB and O2AB}

    One pre-prediction of B & A asks a different specific question:
    (if B>A = ?BA)

    ?BA) Can someone seek happiness and judge others? (Can you discover your self and understand others simultaneously?)
    When A and B are equivalent to ?BA, two O's are possible for this question as well, O1 & O2:

    O1BA) if YES, then as long as there are answers, there are no questions.
    O2BA) if NO, then an answer in your reality can be the question.
    So, BA = {O1BA, O2BA}
    But, BA ≠ {O1BA and O2BA}

    The core relations between the O(ption)'s are analogous only when EXPRESSIONAL-CONTEXT is understood (similar to how + and - become analogous when contrasted against multiplication and division and how division and multiplication become analogous when contrasted against - and +).

    H) To be an entity capable of seeking and judging, you must be a 4-Dimensionally Aware and economically and lower dimensionally enlightened being.

    S) To become economically enlightened, you must be able to see the combinations of the economic quanta (aka the roots of incentives):

    YES means YES or O1AB = O1BA
    then a question in your reality can be the answer and as long as there are answers, there are no questions.

    YES means NO or O1AB = O2BA
    then a question in your reality can be the answer and an answer in your reality can be the question.

    NO means NO or O2AB = O2BA
    then as long as there are questions, there is no answer and an answer in your reality can be the question.

    and NO means YES or O2AB = O1BA
    then as long as there are questions, there is no answer and then as long as there are answers, there are no questions.;

    A deep understanding of contextual symmetry is needed to form accurate predictions of what YES and NO insinuates.


    The acceptance of duality is seen in this 4-Dimensional Expression of Contextual Possibility as the origin of incentive: a quanta question.
    The first question was the first intelligent thought that spawned a minimum of 2 answers varied due to quantum mechanics, creating the original observable DUALITY. If the question is real, the incentive to answer it will predict the answer.
    Here’s an example of one question spawning a minimum of two answers that leads to an ∞:

    x = y
    x2 = xy
    x2 - y2 = xy - y2
    (x2 - y2) ÷ (x – y) = (xy – y2) ÷ (x – y)
    x + y = y
    x = y
    2 y = y
    2 = 1
    2 – 1 = 1 - 1
    1 = 0
    1 ÷ 0 = 0 ÷ 0
    1 ÷ 0 = ∞

    Therefore, whom you ask will cause a variation in the answer, which in turn varies the definition of a question; infinities are then created since our answers depend on incentives that constantly change along with the definition of a “real” infinity at the quantum question level with time. A “real” infinity would describe a past infinity, where relative infinities exist closer to the edge of the universe (aka closer to c or the speed of light). Infinity could only exist where questions can exist and since questions only exist at slower than c (the speed of light) within intelligent beings containing spirit quantum, then infinity and consequently time become the essence of the spirit quanta (analogous to particles and waves, but instead of E=mc2 , you get: ?≥(∞÷T) = ?≥(0÷1) and other similar predictions; This is the purest visualization of the quantum binding between two question-bound quanta).

    Imagine E ≥ mc2

    Combined with 0-3-Dimensional Enlightenment, ? Theory tells us that our questions are what define us at the quantum level.


    The only possibilities of human action once economically and dimensionally enlightened, is to predict events for gain or sit back passively for the sake of observation.

    This predicts that infinity can only exist in the time-lapse act of an intelligent 3-Dimensional being that perceives 0 through 3 dimensions correctly, pondering the 4th dimension and therefore existing in a world where time is equivalent to a relevant infinity.

    Time becomes an unconfirmed substitute for relative infinity – this is an infinity that only exists in relation to something intelligent.

    This generates logic that produces an economic insight:

    If a person can predict the incentive to answer a question, that person can predict the answer; but this doesn't predict the question. This raises the possibility that a way to predict a (quanta) question is to statistically track predictions of incentives to answer questions over time, where the faster time increases toward the value of infinity, the more accurate the predictions of future questions, which would lead to complete economic control.

    This is one advantage a quantum computer would have over the human mind: the power to predict questions more accurately as time accelerates to infinity.

    Computers can potentially live forever therefore their capacity for understanding INFINITY is inherently greater than a humans.

    To get a “real” infinity, you must divide 1 by 0.

    So by theorizing that 0 divided by 1 does exist and actually explains quantum relationships, a relative infinity could possibly be attached to the smallest physical quanta.

    This quanta exists in strings, gravitons, bosons or some yet undiscovered hybrid particle whose characteristics are so hidden in our dimension that they must exist at a higher dimension to such an extreme rate that they affect our lower dimension; imagine you being that particle. For an observer, it would be like standing on the surface of the universe and being able to detect just you, even though the surface of the universe is moving at the speed of light (which is increasing constantly) and is infinitely brighter by the second. That’s how special these quanta would be to find and comprehend, let alone manipulate in terms of time.

    Imagine finding intelligence at such a low frequency that it must be higher dimensional to exist, since “real” infinity only exists within intelligence itself.

    Since Infinity exists because we do, the Anthropic Principle begins to show its ugly face in yet another theory and tells us that the reverse could be true as well: we exist because infinity exists. The prediction of this theory, however, works with this principle; the closer time gets to infinity, the closer the ratio of 0:1 comes to 1:1, therefore the edge of the universe (the part moving at the “true” c speed of light) would logically be the closest plane for 0 = 1. This would entail that our thoughts take place in a plane where 0 ≠ 1 and we exist because the universe already existed.
    Could we just be seeking our own intelligence’s physical structure since we already assume our intelligence exists in the first place?

    When a question is asked, does it automatically generate an answer, or are there “true” questions without answers?

    Are the quantum questions with answers the “real” ones that become exponentially complicated enough to form “real” matter?

    If this question’s answer is YES, then the questions without answers never come into existence; but what if some questions are so difficult that they actually occupy a time quanta just to be asked, yet there is no answer? Does this quanta just pop in and out of existence? Would a sign of this be chaos within a pattern?

    The universe seems to be a huge pattern that holds chaos within and not outside itself.

    Our existence proves that if we observe something, we can assume it is pattern or chaos, but since all is held within a pattern, the chaos seen from outside the universe would be seen as a pattern as well. So only from within a pattern can chaos even exist.

    This theory describes a single quanta-thought process in a visual manner and poses the question: Can a single thought be predicted or are only groups of thoughts predictable?

    The fundamental problem with physics is that 0 is treated more like a number than it should be.

    Treating 0 like a number is like saying y is sometimes a vowel but sometimes a consonant. 0 needs to be treated like ∞ all the time if a singularity aka the beginning of the universe can exist, only if detectable by us today.

    The farther we travel forward in time, the farther we get from the past and simultaneously the chronologic reciprocal would be true as well: the farther we travel through time, the farther we get from the edge of the universe, since it is the only thing going the “true” speed of light. Hence: the past can be described with an equivalence to 1 ÷ 0 only if the future can be describe as 0 ÷ 1, 1 being the singularity’s beginning (and the past up until right now) and 1 also being the singularity’s end future (right now until the future). What exists between the right now until the beginning of time and the right now until end future? That area would be the quanta question’s universe, where graphically it would look like three points, with the one in the middle constantly moving infinitely faster than and farther from the one on its left and right, so to the middle point, both other points are fleeing at the speed of light in opposite direction, creating a line with two segments, the first from point a to point b, the second from point b to point c. Which is longer?

    The trouble is with the thickness of each segment and the direction of their increase of thickness and how both point a and b theoretically have an infinite diameter at each of their farthest surfaces from point b, yet one infinity can only be seen looking inward toward the singularity from the 4th-Dimension (or using a device to visualize tiny information bits) and the other infinity can only be viewed outward looking toward the 4th-Dimension from the singularity.
    So how close you are to either the 4th-Dimension or the Singularity actually affects the accuracy of the perception of the opposite (You need to constantly be getting closer to the singularity to see the 4th-Dimension and inversely you need to be constantly closer to the 4th-Dimension to see the Singularity.

    0 would be everything in between these two 1’s (aka ∞×2, you could visualize this as ∞×0 or 0×∞ but the first is looking into
    the past, the second: the future. So Hawking’s Light Cones can be a visual of the whole universe within the singularity’s end, the end future, where end future is expanding from our slice of the cone, but observing the other direction, the past, would show you a shrinking point that shrinks at the speed of light. There would also need to be a light cone going the opposite direction of the singularity and both need to constantly split or grow to keep the speed of light increase.

    A paradox might arise: Seeing into the future is equivalent only to the past when a third dimension exists to view time as a line or an arrow, aka a third dimensional observer is the only one who can see a line (God would have to be in our situation to understand our thoughts so if you believe God can do this, then you are God; this sounds crazy but hear me out: if the smallest quanta is a question that expands into thought which expands into space where the answered questions information can be stored, aka the 3-Dimensional world, we are logically large groupings of the original God’s thoughts. We are literally his ideas!
    And what we do is either allowed or not according to our understanding of him (the universe). Contemplating the whole of God and/or other universes would be analogous to a brain neuron comprehending whole other organs, how those organs work together and then making a guess at what the whole system does and further, why does it do anything? To not only guess at why anything happens but to know why brings an observer into the 4-Dimensional world (confidence is a symptom of the closeness to 100% accurate predictions due to familiarity of the truth so “true” confidence can only come from someone closer to the 4-Dimension).

    So we can only live in a dimension of which we can prove the direction of that arrow points in the correct direction for us to exist. We basically read left to right, so time looks like this arrow -> and make sense to you as the correct direction of an arrow describing the flow of time. But would it look mathematically strange to imagine time looking like this: <- ?
    A 4-Dimensional Understanding would tell you it’s the wrong direction. But < is a perfect visualization of the expanding universe: try to tell me the location of the smallest point on the left side of < and tell me the exact distance between the two ends of < and while you’re at it imagine < as a cone where the exact distance between the two ends equates to the exact diameter of this cone.

    This cone is special though: because of quantum mechanics, this cones length cant be determined from the radius since the cone is expanding in time so it depends on when you ask how big the radius of the universe is in terms of an exact quantum of time that will determine the radius.

    This is why physicists denounce infinity but failed to realize that 0 is in fact this infinity. Infinity exists or it doesn’t depending on how close to the singularity or rise to the 4th dimension the observer is. Do you believe in Infinity?

    If YES then you are closer to the 4-Dimension If NO then you are closer to a/the singularity

    These 4-Dimensional Answers can be explained and predicted in terms of 3-D, less accurately at 2-D and practically without accuracy in 1-D (at 0-D, there isn’t even a question, let alone an answer yet!)

    Therefore A.I. depends on the accuracy of 4-Dimensional predictions that ironically need to be smaller and smaller to be feasible to use in a device and further is used to predict moving patterns that we can predict containing the smallest action that will exponentially snowball through time into a change in the Stock Market or a cause of murder.

    Open a blank polar graph on your computer.

    Put in as many of these functions as you possibly can: r=x+.002, r=x+.02, r=x+.2, r=x+2, etc, and go as small or big as you want by adding or subtracting decimals.

    Now zoom out all the way to see the biggest function. Click "zoom in" as fast as you can.

    What you just created is the most basic visualization of the simplest 3-Dimensional structure: a y-axis separated from your observing POV that has a bend that increasings the closer it gets to 0 and shares similarities to a constant incremental increase and decrease of the number of digits added to a number that forces the positive moving aspect of the cone to increase into infinity. The portion of each bent y-axis to the left of 0 describes the quantum issue of particles popping in and out of existence.

    Therefore: 0 is a constant to attached to each observer, but it is not relative between each observer. Infinity and 0 are not universal constants but rather only a constant in an individual. Using logic like this predicts that the more ways we create to sense the universe, the more dimension we create. Since the universe wasn't physically created to be sensed in the first place, the dimensions exist within the observer to create order out of the chaos being sensed (only the senses needed to survive evolved for this reason).

    The universe is as complicated or as simple as you want or can perceive. Making it more complicated has its advantages: Massively complex economic systems bordering on the unpredictable generate untold billions by seeming predictable but are really just gambling on gambling and anomalies tend to crash it. Simplicity has its advantages: not having to think. People love simplicity but the need to survive creates the need to be complex.

    Any questions this article generates proves the infinity quanta question (as time continues toward infinity, the number of quantum thoughts increases toward infinity).

    This could help prove that more energy than matter existed at the beginning of time and only as time continues does the amount of matter increase toward equivalence to the starting energy. We exist in a universe where matter is constantly playing catch up with energy; we think in a way that allows us to see past and future; we cannot define NOW.

    I propose "now" is the base time quanta, equivalent to nothing (and the best description of mathematical 0), since infinite nothings fit into the next incremental quantum.

    Time travel can only happen if you can connect more than one "now"'s; doing so would involve traveling through the 4th Dimension (which we discussed only exists at our individual plane). You would need to fold your body in on itself until you physically become a singularity in order to travel this way; however: information should be able to physically do this, but keeping the original info intact would be a nightmare on the receiving end (whether in the past or future).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    nbernardini, welcome to SciForums.
    Does your presence, and subsequent (^^above^^) Posting of this seemingly, Awesome...nay...indeed... Miraculous (also, may I Humbly add, economically Succinct and Concisely worded!) Thread, indicate that the "Quantum Economy of a Singularity of Ultimate Intelligence" has truly "Manifested Itself through the Folded Infinite Improbability of 4-Dimensional Time/Space/Planar Continuum" to enlighten all of this mediocre Humanity with the "Ultimate Expression of and Deigning of Universal Knowledge"?

    nbernardini, I may be "off the mark" somewhat, but is this not unprecedented in the full history of Humankind??!!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nbernardini Registered Member

    YES! Just the fact that a singularity became the matter/energy filled universe with an economy that has no real energy to matter relationship proves that we indeed give ourselves a purpose. Our purpose could not have been conceived during the singularity;

    hence a divine planner could only have been "borne" in the moment between the realization that a singularity exists (from 0 to 1 dimension); hence a divine question could be asked creating the first quanta (1 to 2 dimensions)

    followed by more than infinite answers, where only answers that lead to more questions tend to form a continual 3rd dimension...

    until all questions are answered creating a 4th dimension where questions are irrelevant and the purpose of the questions becomes the new physical law (which happens relative to the observer the closer he is to the 4th dimension, which depends on his control of the inner 3 dimensions)

    Hence the truly intelligent beings are an anomaly that can prove e > mc^2 in the past and future and only in the exact quanta "now" is e = mc^2

    therefore it is our information that is truly divine: it can time travel when we cannot; we create the holy grail by searching for it.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    nbernardini, Cooler than Absolute Zero ?!?!?!

    After your 2 ^^above^^ Posts, I can only wait and antici.............pate further "Enlightenment"!!!
  8. nbernardini Registered Member

    absolute zero only exists outside our universe! thats what "true" space is!

    it would be the force that keeps the entire universe a singularity to an observer outside the universe!

    strange huh? the entire universe would look to be one uniformed temperature anomaly within a vast area of absolute zero (0 energy at least)

    (i like your antic.........pate! we exist in the "......." and the now is just one "." and the letters just happen to form one whole word, but are nonsense without the "........." BUT is just one now "." very important? or is it the number of nows that define that particular universe you have spawned in my 4th dimension?)

    PS: enlightenment is the word i like to use to describe when a singularity becomes higher dimensional for a quantum time, not necessarily a narcissistic reference to ascending from this world irreversibly and leaving behind mediocre humanity to live individually purposeless lives... think drug abuse, but the high is the dimensional understanding and the symptoms are either nothing or economic gain.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Golly! In addition to your many other accomplishments, you speak fluent woo-woo! I'm most impressed:bravo:.
  10. nbernardini Registered Member

    As any politician can do... this is about economy in essence and therefore woo-woo language is the native tongue. I have an inkling that science is trying to describe how/why a decision is formed from seemingly chaotic information...
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    exchemist, do you not know how to speak sarwoo-woocasm. Tis a lot easier to pick up just by reading Posts on this forum.

    exchemist, pretty sure you caught exactly what I did by reading OP's OP. Just making sure the inferred intent is meant intent. Pretty sure sock. Pretty sure Jim Henson would not be "Most Impressed".

    BTW, do you Grok?
  12. nbernardini Registered Member

    Sarcasm: the reason science takes so long?

    So science is basically stumped on sarcasm... are we all mathematicians here?

    if so, you are probably the most likely to predict an event within physical bounds, but most unlikely to know why your prediction works.

    You may know how the numbers come together to make a product, but then theres little old 0. No sarcasm please, but prove me wrong: zero can only exist outside the universe and outside physics.

    It works great for mathematical probabilities/statistics, but all those damn probabilities that don't come to fruition aren't real: they are a product of 0!

    You wonder why infinities occur in situations where there shouldn't be any because you're blind to fact that 0 needs to be treated as infinity always; not a nothing that produces infinity when you get stuck dividing by it. Would it be worth redoing all of science if you could redo it correctly?

    I'm not posing that we throw 0 away, just that we teach 0 as a function of a singularity! its a reverse infinity that goes infinitely decimal. You can't ever actually reach 0 (let alone the task of a negative number i.e. how can you have a negative amount of something? You have three apples and I take 5 away, so now you have -2 apples? Does that mean i now have 3 apples and 2 ghost apples that i wished i could have taken from you?), since it would be a singularity i.e. you could only view it from outside the universe from a POV where the universe is a singularity itself (since getting any closer to the universe would throw you through the dimensions and you would become matter if you exist)

    Picture this: if you are trying to calculate the effect a vacuum has on a mass with gravity, i can guarantee you won't ever have a vacuum stronger than gravity to where gravity becomes a negative number; there would be no gravity in the first place to tell you a mass exists if the vacuum won out. So the background-independent constant throughout the universe as far as 3 dimensions is concerned would need to be the agreed upon Positive. Any negatives and 0's are just probabilities with no answer in this universe.
  13. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    nbernardini, again, wow. You pick up everything so completely so quick - like you know what I said before I even thought it!

    nbernardini, I cannot predict anything - let alone know the mathematics of science that sarcasms!

    If you had been here some time ago The Sarwoo fellow knew some of the stuff you Post about. I most likely will not be able to find his old threads. Any way he used to get a woo-casm or woo-gasm or something like that when people understood him. I'm probably wrong - so maybe it's sarwoo-woogasm and not sarwoo-woocasm .

    Maybe you changed Poster name - some people do - anyway maybe you remember better, your smart not me - you probably know how to speak sarwoo-woocasm or sarwoo-woogasm (whichever it is!?) way better than i can...I digress!

    More smart stuff please - That absolute Zero stuff was cool. maybe more about that?
  14. nbernardini Registered Member

    Anyone Spare some Change?

    I just wooged.

    Its funny: so sarcasm doesn't exist? or just not in the universe we create using current mathematics?

    Do people actually separate the rest of their lives from science in this way? Creating a little bubble of comfort via control within their understanding of math, but let anything that shakes this foundational bubble that doesn't follow their logic turn into an infinity or 0, so it doesn't exist? But if it shook their bubbles how is this so? unless your bubble doesn't exist. The connection between you and other humans doesn't exist. Sir if a tree fell in the forest...

    All I'm saying is that theory is philosophy that makes real predictions. If I proved everything in this thread with math, would this mean anything to the world? if not, what is the INCENTIVE to be sarcastic rather than scientific? or scientifically sarcastic?

    What if I had to invent my own math to allow my own logic to work? If the principles worked, what is there (besides a bunch of followers and memorizers) to stop me? Me? Isn't theory meant to be worked on? After so many questions are asked of a theory and so many answers are given wrong, isn't that a sign for change?

    Isn't change the essence of "space-time" geometry?

Share This Page