Reality is...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Spellbound, Aug 24, 2015.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623

    I've spent days reading about first order logic and this was the result of my thoughts. The CTMU makes use of model-theory (which requires a basic understanding of First-order Logic) and derives a Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded reality into itself (growing itself into itself, look up the term Conspansion) L:R-->R (∃xφ), (∀xφ), which follows from (φ ∨ ψ), (φ ∧ ψ), (¬φ), (φ → ψ). So that first-order sentences (which are embedded into each other using variables and quantifiers) are analogous to this logical quantum-geometrodynamical self-embedding of reality into itself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Balls.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    To think is not to know. To think is to assume.

    When a thought becomes knowledge it is no longer an assumption.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OK that's enough of this shite .........[click]
     
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    A common definition of knowledge is 'justified true belief'.

    What you have never done, and seem extraordinarily resistant to doing, is provide any justification for anything you say. Even worse, you never explain it well enough so that other people can even understand what your pseudo-technical vocabulary means, let alone why they should join you in believing it.
     
  9. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    It is also justified non-belief.

    I've explained the justification for this particular part of Langan's meta-theory with insight into the formal definition of first order theory satisfiability, M |= T. The elementary mathematical objects of model theory can be directly related to a single Quantum of logic. In Quantum logic, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic.
     
  10. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Life Farsight explains things? Sure, you bet.
     
  11. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    You already have your "Reality is..." thread for your CTMU spam. Use that instead.
     
  12. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Do you have any intelligent thoughts on what I said besides spamming my thread with a blanket opinion? No? Thought so.

    If on the off chance that you, and anyone else, do pursue an understanding of my work, beginning with most of my threads on reality, it will lead to an awareness of your own awareness (enlightenment through logic).

    The witnesser will disappear, like it has with me 3 or 4 times, including twice yesterday, and what will remain would be the witnessing. I.e. the possessive ego id identity will disappear and your true self will emerge if you follow my threads.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    This is all utter garbage, spellbound.
    You have said nothing: you have simply posted sections of other peoples' work. There is no understanding to be had, at least not in the way you operate on this forum. You are unable to adequately explain any of what you copy/paste, and your personal experiences come across as though from someone who hasn't been taking their medication as regularly as they should have been.
    Until you learn to post something meaningful in a manner that encourages understanding by others, please restrict yourself to the cesspool of a thread reserved for you.
     
  14. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Perhaps you simply are unwilling to understand?

    Let's leave our personal opinions and biases out of this thread shall we? Logic is Quantum. Quantum, logic. First order logic formulas are built by atomic formulas (see OP). Which themselves combine to form first order theories. A first order theory that is satisfiable has a model M |= T. We derive Quantum logic from this and the CTMU derives a reality that is Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded. Where spatiotemporal containment defines the location of objects within time and space. As the objects move through time and space, they take their state-recognition and state-transformation syntaxes directly from this ambient spatiotemporal background. Now, what does this have to do with first order logic? Well, if you read the very first paragraph of what I posted from the Wikipedia article, it says that Universal Algebra provides the semantics for the signature of a formal language, whereas logic provides the syntax. So we have reality being logically Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded within itself using syntax.

    I will develop a better argument for this thread that would be guaranteed to bring you and everyone else into enlightenment. I just need time.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Mod Note

    A few points..

    1) Plagiarism is not acceptable and the copy and paste job in the OP was plagiarism. Spellbound, you copied and pasted and then signed your name at the bottom of it. You didn't even add anything of your own.

    2) You have been repeatedly warned, and banned, for posting this CTMU and the 'reality is' stuff on this site. It became so problematic that an administrator created a "Reality Is" thread, in the hope that you would keep it contained there. Instead, you keep posting it all over the forum.

    2.1) It is utter rubbish and makes absolutely no sense.
    2.2) It is not welcome on this site.
    2.3) If you cannot help yourself and need to post it, keep it contained to the "Reality Is" thread.

    3) If you keep posting this stuff you will face further moderation.

    4) This website is not your personal blog. If you feel so inclined to post about this stuff all the time, then perhaps you should create a blog site and post it there. Stop posting it on this site. It isn't wanted or welcome. We have tried to accommodate you by trying to keep it all in the one thread, but you refuse to adhere to this site's wishes in that regard. This is not acceptable. If you persist in posting this stuff outside of that "Reality Is" thread, you will end up being permanently banned.

    5) The contents of this thread will be moved to the "Reality Is" thread.

    As a result of being moderated for this thread, Spellbound has been banned for 14 days. Perhaps that will provide him with time to think about his future on this site and how he wishes to proceed.
     
    exchemist and Ophiolite like this.
  16. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    He may be posting on that "Sharadreams wotnot" site, it's just that his 'posts' are ending-up here on sciforums.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Or he is posting it here and it's ending up there.

    He logs on here to post this threads.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You had to cut-and-paste somebody else's work to express your thoughts? Why?

    I'm struggling to understand what you wrote here, so I hope you can define some terms for me and explain. After all, you're posting here in order to communicate your ideas to other people, are you not? So here are my questions:

    1. What is model-theory?
    2. What is First-order Logic and how many other orders are they and how are they different from one another?
    3. What does the term "geometrodynamic" mean?
    4. What does "quantum-geometrodynamic" mean?
    5. What is an embedded reality?
    6. How can something be embedded into itself? Can you give a couple of other examples?
    7. What are L and R?
    8. Explain in words what L:R-->R (∃xφ), (∀xφ) is saying and what it means and how it relates to conspansion.
    9. How does L:R-->R (∃xφ), (∀xφ) follow from the other four operations you have listed?
    10. Explain in words what (φ ∨ ψ), (φ ∧ ψ), (¬φ), (φ → ψ) means.
    11. What is a first-order sentence? How many orders are there, and how are they different from one another?
    12. What kinds of variables and quantifiers apply to first-order sentences?
    13. Can you explain how a first-order sentence can be embedded into another first-order sentence using variables and quantifiers?
    14. What is "reality"? Please define that term in the context in which you are using it in this paragraph.
    15. How is a first-order sentence analogous to the quantum-geometrodynamical self-embedding of reality into itself? What analogy is being used, exactly?

    I look forward to your answers.
     
    Yazata likes this.
  19. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    John Archibald Wheeler sought a more fundamental reformulation of General Relativity than the Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner formalism that posits a dynamic geometry whose curvature changes with time. This has come to be known as Wheeler's Geometrodynamics.

    This assumes that spacetime is not immaterial, but subject to warps, curves and twists. This makes perfect sense to me. Because if space in reality were actually an immaterial vacuum then massive objects would be unable to be subject to the laws of gravitation, since nothing would be held in place nor influence another thing other from afar (action-at-a-distance). Which would make the laws of nature incredibly nonsensical. Therefore, spacetime is not nothingness, but subject to causation and interaction. Gravitation is not a long-range mysterious, unseen force.

    The elementary building blocks of matter are the same as they were at the beginning of the Big Bang as they will be at the end. Where if the universe were to have a boundary or an edge to it, it would be anything but matter and energy, duh, and hence not something that was artificially constructed. I read somewhere that the boundary does not consist of anything material, and that if one were to reach the edge, it would lead back to the other side as though it went on infinitely. A strange loop.

    Language and grammars change with time as well. Look up production rules. Where symbol (syntactic variable) substitution can be recursively performed to generate new grammars,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    As we evolve or devolve, depending on conditions, both within and without, phenomenal objects appearing to perception are received by noumenal consciousness which then creates the interpretation of those objects, but not before they are perceived. Hence what you believe you perceive and what you perceive you believe. All of these things change in time.

    If all things are subject to erosion and entropy (except for Bohm's wholeness and the implicate order and/or nothingness) then nothing is timeless and eternal, hence the universe would have a finite existence and death would not be illusory. This brings in to question Quantum Mechanics, retrocausation and the Many Interacting Worlds Theory. Does anyone have an expert opinion on this?

    Also, if God is real then He too is subject to change in time. But this leads to a paradox, since if God were real He could not interfere with space, time and object. So God must assume both itself and not-itself. Both existence and non-existence in order to intervene. A true paradox of inconceivable proportions.

    (Note to moderators: Before you think of moving this thread or trashing it please see CC's response here to comprehend its importance.)
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Are you kidding me????? Reported and have a nice holiday - or if it is a permant ban have a nice life. [shakes head and hears rattling...]
     
    exchemist likes this.
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One problem with current physics, is Einstein showed that reference was relative. The problem this creates is connected to energy conservation. Energy and mass are not relative to reference, or else energy conservation is made invalid.

    If we have a train in motion and a person standing at the station, relative references says each can model the other by relative motion; both see the same velocity. But if you do an energy balance, the kinetic energy of the train in motion is much higher than the kinetic energy of one person in motion. Relative reference may work for velocity, but it can violates energy conservation.

    Since we look at the universe from the earth and solar system, and these are relative references, we have no clue if this represent the proper energy balance of the universe. Say we underestimate or over estimate the total energy of the universe, due to using a relative reference. Eventually we will need to postulate invisible matter and energy; dark matter and dark energy, to fix the problem. These do not exist other than as a book keeper adjustment.

    The universe changing over time is often the result of the energy balance changing, because relative reference violates energy conservation. The estimate of energy from a relative reference may seem consistent with theory, but will eventually anomalies will appear and then bandaids will be added, to compensate for the needed energy.

    Let me give an example of the energy problem of relative reference. Say we lived on the top of large plateau. The plateau has a one mile elevation relative to sea level. However, since it is huge and nobody is allowed to go to the edge; taboo, we call the center of the plateau, the point of zero energy. It is called zero energy, yet the place of zero energy has one mile of hidden gravitational potential relative to sea level, that we don't see and know exists.

    In the middle of the plateau is a huge lake. Someone notices the lake is lowering each year at a rate faster than evaporation calculations. This makes no sense, since this lake is defined as being at the zero energy state for gravity. We may need to postulate a new mystery energy, that can account for how the lake lower below zero potential.

    In reality there is no mystery energy needed, because the true zero potential is actually sea level, and not the lake at the top of the plateau. The earth is like the lake at top of a plateau, due to relative reference and violation of energy conservation. The changes we see are the adjustments to get back to energy conservation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Hopefully that's Carbon Copy or something. Otherwise: Huh?

    Ah, "Crash Course".

    До свидания!
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2016
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yes, and sayonara, tot ziens and toodle-pip for good measure.

    Looks, however, as though Origin has been taking a Krash course.....(shrugs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     

Share This Page