Wacky theory.. Ty Torn.. "Spatial" Dimensions.. - Pa…
Wacky theory.. Ty Torn.. "Spatial" Dimensions..
    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:06:58 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".
    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:21:30 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    Dire [2091491]

    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 
    In what world? 100/3 = 33.333...

    33.333...*3 = 100

    If you try and represent 100/3 in decimal without taking into account that there are literally infinitely many decimals then you are doing the maths wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

    "All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension"-what? care to actually explain something for once?

    "1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?" - Again, wtf are you on about?!

    "Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data"...just...no.

    "There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results." - Care to explain this one?

    "I have not produced a complete theory" - You haven't even started to work on a theory here. 

     

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:26:29 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    I can muse all day every day!

    Well, Saint, that would be roughly the equivalant of "I don't think, therefore I am God." It kind of works, but not really. I mean, that would kind of validate the concept of enlightenment, because those two listed conditions are the prerequisites of most concepts of enlightenment. So, all time exists all the time, and all points influence all other poins in the manner of a feedback loop. To observe and not be conscious means to become one with nature, the state of no-mind.

    If I were to try and conceptualise 4d, it would be processes. I occasionally refer to the "pendulum theory" because I was taught about it in history class on a political issue, but it applies to many other social phenomena, and somehow applies here. I'm not very good at explaining 4-D phenomena, so I look to world religions, which I suspect to be the attempts of the ancients at the same.

    I supposed that would make for a 50-50 ratio (coin-flip) probability as to whether we evolve (heaven) or devolve and/or destroy ourselves (hell). Reason being both need to exist in equal amounts, because positive and negative always exist in an eternal state of balance (because, Taoism!). Apparently the population of worlds like ours is either:

    - Done by 4d beings to raise humans as food/slaves/entertainment or for the purporse of (de-terraforming?)

    -a part of a natural extention of the life cycle, the life cycles of beings, of their extinction or evoluion, their rise and decline, the pulse ever-beating, ever changing, but remaining very much the same. So one planet makes it and evilves, one fails and nukes itself.

    I, of course, prefer the second option. I don't discount the stronger probability of the first.

    When you can see processes and their outcomes before they happen, you see the 4D. From that perspective, this was my favourite song in my early 20's. I also had a crush on Peter Steele. But, come on, who didn't? Edit: 39+ U.S., almost always on drugs (just weed tho)

     

    Half of ya pisstaking is very close to what i propose :) The other half is quite absurd. 

    For example. Not thinking would represent unfiltered consciousness. A lack of perception, due to no things being available to compare to the data lost :) 

    Its not  that all time exists in all time... More that in any amount of time exists infinite space, Any amount of space is infinitely divisible.... and therefore can be configured in an infinite number of variations... Infinite variations.... can be viewed as infinite time.... 

    Probability is refined guesswork.... If ya don't have the data..... chance is your next best guess. Now i am happy to accept impassable limitations to perception/measurement.... but there is always data..... never "probabilistic reality".... Even irrational numbers remain predictable.

    Done by 4d beings to raise humans as food/slaves/entertainment or for the purpose of (de-terraforming?)

    Close to what i'd suggest. I would say its a means for them to learn about themselves. We often recreate scenes from our distant past to better comprehend the state of affairs.. We don't have many records of humans living in caves... But we can live in caves to try it out.. "Deteraforming".... They would take their environment with them, far more efficient... Back engineering though... yep, i can see us using our genetics to produce forms that greatly resemble past version of what lead to modern day human :)

     

    A previous dimension... Is comparatively impossibly thin compared to the current dimension. Freeze time, take an infinitely small snapshot ..... One so small that time does not run....... You have no light... and ALL you have left is 3d objects.... This snapshot is near to impossibly thin compared to the thing that has a comparatively infinite series of these single 3d frames.....

    In terms of it existing as a possible puzzle piece.... Any rational thinking will either form a valid argument against... or they will accept it as potentially valid... But of course..... You Fujiko.... would have to aim for in between the two....

    At least Lewri complained in a errr, "destinct" manor

     

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:28:46 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    Dire [2091491]

    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    In what world? 100/3 = 33.333...

    33.333...*3 = 100

    If you try and represent 100/3 in decimal without taking into account that there are literally infinitely many decimals then you are doing the maths wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

    "All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension"-what? care to actually explain something for once?

    "1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?" - Again, wtf are you on about?!

    "Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data"...just...no.

    "There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results." - Care to explain this one?

    "I have not produced a complete theory" - You haven't even started to work on a theory here. 

     
    100/3 = 33.3333333333333333333 etc

    times by 3 = 99.9999999999999999999 etc

    ----------------------

    Anyways... like i said at the end. Tell me something you believe. Let me play troll :) 

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:37:36 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    Dire [2091491]

    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    In what world? 100/3 = 33.333...

    33.333...*3 = 100

    If you try and represent 100/3 in decimal without taking into account that there are literally infinitely many decimals then you are doing the maths wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

    "All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension"-what? care to actually explain something for once?

    "1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?" - Again, wtf are you on about?!

    "Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data"...just...no.

    "There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results." - Care to explain this one?

    "I have not produced a complete theory" - You haven't even started to work on a theory here. 

     

    Dire [2091491]

    100/3 = 33.3333333333333333333 etc

    times by 3 = 99.9999999999999999999 etc

    ----------------------

    Anyways... like i said at the end. Tell me something you believe. Let me play troll :) 
    Or more correctly it equals 99.9999....=10 (try actually watching the link I sent).

    I'm not being a troll, I'm just pointing out that literally nothing you have said in this thread actually makes sense.

    What sort of stuff would you like me to say that I believe? I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws. I believe that when analysed correctly, the data shows that not only is global warming happening, it is most likely largely contributed to by humans. I believe that pretty much everything in the end boils down to philosophy and logic.

    Edit: Wow, you seriously going through my posts on other threads and disliking them? Get a ****ing life.
    Last edited by Lewri on 22:39:05 - 28/01/19

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:42:14 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    Dire [2091491]

    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    In what world? 100/3 = 33.333...

    33.333...*3 = 100

    If you try and represent 100/3 in decimal without taking into account that there are literally infinitely many decimals then you are doing the maths wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

    "All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension"-what? care to actually explain something for once?

    "1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?" - Again, wtf are you on about?!

    "Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data"...just...no.

    "There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results." - Care to explain this one?

    "I have not produced a complete theory" - You haven't even started to work on a theory here. 

     

    Dire [2091491]

    100/3 = 33.3333333333333333333 etc

    times by 3 = 99.9999999999999999999 etc

    ----------------------

    Anyways... like i said at the end. Tell me something you believe. Let me play troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    Or more correctly it equals 99.9999....=10 (try actually watching the link I sent).

    I'm not being a troll, I'm just pointing out that literally nothing you have said in this thread actually makes sense.

    What sort of stuff would you like me to say that I believe? I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws. I believe that when analysed correctly, the data shows that not only is global warming happening, it is most likely largely contributed to by humans. I believe that pretty much everything in the end boils down to philosophy and logic.

    Edit: Wow, you seriously going through my posts on other threads and disliking them? Get a ****ing life.
    By what authority do you define "making sense" 

    "I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws"

    But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers.... 

    "philosophy and logic"

    But logically all philosophy is limited.... and philosophically logic is potentially the bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations. 

    You don't seem to be making much sense. :/ 

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:46:34 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    Or more correctly it equals 99.9999....=10 (try actually watching the link I sent).

    I'm not being a troll, I'm just pointing out that literally nothing you have said in this thread actually makes sense.

    What sort of stuff would you like me to say that I believe? I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws. I believe that when analysed correctly, the data shows that not only is global warming happening, it is most likely largely contributed to by humans. I believe that pretty much everything in the end boils down to philosophy and logic.

    Edit: Wow, you seriously going through my posts on other threads and disliking them? Get a ****ing life.
    Just to clarify, i don't dispute that 3.333333..... multiplied by 3.33333333..... equates to 10... but technically speaking, the calculation would take forever to complete.... and then more time.....

    Edit - You are playing torn...... and telling me to get a life?!?! ...... Jesus..... That's a bit hypocritical :p Anyways, Ta for the amusement. Enjoy ya superior understanding :) 
    Last edited by Dire on 22:48:38 - 28/01/19

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:49:05 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    I'm sorry but this is still all just babble without any actual meaning. You say that maths differs slightly from reality but the only example you can give is irrational numbers, this argument is invalid because by definition irrational numbers are numbers that can't be represented using fractions of integers however that doesnt make them any less real as we can still represent them in other ways and use them. The use of irrational numbers clearly works otherwise a circle wouldnt be possible but we can describe the maths of these things perfectly and have been doing so for a long time. Whats more we are able to take "abstract" maths ideas such as the Riemann zeta function and apply this to the natural numbers to show an association with them to -1/12 which we are then able to show actually happens in reality!

    "Add any aspects to it that it does not have.... and you need more numbers to define a position/state......

    And sooo..... For time to exist.... there must be more than 3 dimensions.... **Spatial dimensions!!!**" But why? why must these extra numbers you're adding be part of an extra spatial dimension? They may be part of an extra dimension but there is absolutely no reason to believe that its spatial rather than temporal or that the temporal dimension is a result of extra spatial dimensions or anything like that.

    You have still failed to put forward any reasoning whatsoever for your "theory".

    Dire [2091491]

    Second example then. Divide 100 by 3. And then multiply the answer by 3.....

    If you use decimals. The result is different to your starting number....
    If you use fractions, Then you have to use infinite division to calculate the answer.

    Either way, They do not accurately show the interaction you are trying to describe. 

    -----------------------------------

    All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension. 

    1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?

    Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data. The concept of a 4 dimensional space is not a new concept. It is not invented by me..... Now rather than put in in terms of a timeless state that hold a 3rd perpendicular to a line... I posit that perpendicular loses its meaning and the next line must be a little more abstract...... The only thing that fits all the math accurately.... The only thing that is within our perception and follows the sequence, Is the procession of change which we measure using time. 

    Are ya familiar with the brain in a jar theory? 

    If ya take nada else from this.... Theoretically speaking. There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results. Any evidence against determinism may just be evidence of a limitation to perception. Therefore determinism cannot be proved inaccurate. It can only ever exist as a potential explanation. 

    I have not produced a complete theory, I have not submitted this here for peer review.... Your "Babble without actual meaning" May just be information outlining a concept that went over your head..... I employed badly used terms and very generalised speech to give an impression as to what i have been working with......

    Tell me something you believe? Let me be the troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    In what world? 100/3 = 33.333...

    33.333...*3 = 100

    If you try and represent 100/3 in decimal without taking into account that there are literally infinitely many decimals then you are doing the maths wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDtFBSjNmm0

    "All dimensions only exist as properties of a greater dimension"-what? care to actually explain something for once?

    "1 to the 0 = Spatial
    1 to the 1 = Spatial
    1 to the 2 = Spatial
    1 to the 3 = Spatial
    1 to the 4 = Not spatial?!?!?" - Again, wtf are you on about?!

    "Sequences must follow a trend as defined by previous data"...just...no.

    "There is always a simpler possible explanation that leads to an identical set of results." - Care to explain this one?

    "I have not produced a complete theory" - You haven't even started to work on a theory here. 

     

    Dire [2091491]

    100/3 = 33.3333333333333333333 etc

    times by 3 = 99.9999999999999999999 etc

    ----------------------

    Anyways... like i said at the end. Tell me something you believe. Let me play troll :) 

    Lewri [1762864]

    Or more correctly it equals 99.9999....=10 (try actually watching the link I sent).

    I'm not being a troll, I'm just pointing out that literally nothing you have said in this thread actually makes sense.

    What sort of stuff would you like me to say that I believe? I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws. I believe that when analysed correctly, the data shows that not only is global warming happening, it is most likely largely contributed to by humans. I believe that pretty much everything in the end boils down to philosophy and logic.

    Edit: Wow, you seriously going through my posts on other threads and disliking them? Get a ****ing life.

    Dire [2091491]

    By what authority do you define "making sense" 

    "I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws"

    But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers.... 

    "philosophy and logic"

    But logically all philosophy is limited.... and philosophically logic is potentially the bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations. 

    You don't seem to be making much sense. :/ 
    "By what authority do you define "making sense" " - Ideally being logical, or at least trying to make logical steps.

    "But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers" - and you fail to see that recurring numbers can be exactly equal to whole numbers. Go watch the video I sent and try listening to some actual mathematics,

    "bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations" - logic has nothing to do with calculations other than that our system of mathematics arises from logic.

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:51:10 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    "By what authority do you define "making sense" " - Ideally being logical, or at least trying to make logical steps.

    "But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers" - and you fail to see that recurring numbers can be exactly equal to whole numbers. Go watch the video I sent and try listening to some actual mathematics,

    "bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations" - logic has nothing to do with calculations other than that our system of mathematics arises from logic.
    "Just to clarify, i don't dispute that 3.333333..... multiplied by 3.33333333..... equates to 10... but technically speaking, the calculation would take forever to complete.... and then more time....."

     "or at least trying to make logical steps.".... urm logical steps.... aka calculations.... "logic has nothing to do with calculations"..... Contradictions much? 

    """A calculation is a careful, thought-out activity. The first kind of calculation involves figuring out the answer to a problem in math — the kind you might use a calculator for. Calculation also refers to using logic to figure out a non-numerical problem."""
    Last edited by Dire on 22:53:48 - 28/01/19

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 1 hour
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:54:40 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    "By what authority do you define "making sense" " - Ideally being logical, or at least trying to make logical steps.

    "But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers" - and you fail to see that recurring numbers can be exactly equal to whole numbers. Go watch the video I sent and try listening to some actual mathematics,

    "bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations" - logic has nothing to do with calculations other than that our system of mathematics arises from logic.

    Dire [2091491]

    "Just to clarify, i don't dispute that 3.333333..... multiplied by 3.33333333..... equates to 10... but technically speaking, the calculation would take forever to complete.... and then more time....."

     "or at least trying to make logical steps.".... urm logical steps.... aka calculations.... "logic has nothing to do with calculations"..... Contradictions much? 

    """A calculation is a careful, thought-out activity. The first kind of calculation involves figuring out the answer to a problem in math — the kind you might use a calculator for. Calculation also refers to using logic to figure out a non-numerical problem."""
    Absolutely no contradiction given you are the only person saying that logic is calculations. That is completely wrong, calculations are based on logic, not the other way round.

    If you arent going to add anything useful to this and instead just choose to go in circles making stuff up and hospitalising me then I cba anymore. I'm gonna get back to writing my report now.

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:55:52 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    Or more correctly it equals 99.9999....=10 (try actually watching the link I sent).

    I'm not being a troll, I'm just pointing out that literally nothing you have said in this thread actually makes sense.

    What sort of stuff would you like me to say that I believe? I believe that Einstein's relativity and quantum field theory are two of the most accurate theories ever created but that they both have flaws. I believe that when analysed correctly, the data shows that not only is global warming happening, it is most likely largely contributed to by humans. I believe that pretty much everything in the end boils down to philosophy and logic.

    Edit: Wow, you seriously going through my posts on other threads and disliking them? Get a ****ing life.
    Oooooh, Also, what are these flaws? As far as i can tell, none have been found in either theory yet. 

    fwUaiQx.png

    • Dire [2091491]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 5,026
    • Karma: 4,532
    • Last Action: 15 minutes
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 22:59:32 - 28/01/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Lewri [1762864]

    "By what authority do you define "making sense" " - Ideally being logical, or at least trying to make logical steps.

    "But ya can't see that recurring numbers multiplied by each other produce recurring numbers" - and you fail to see that recurring numbers can be exactly equal to whole numbers. Go watch the video I sent and try listening to some actual mathematics,

    "bi-product of an imperfect set of calculations" - logic has nothing to do with calculations other than that our system of mathematics arises from logic.

    Dire [2091491]

    "Just to clarify, i don't dispute that 3.333333..... multiplied by 3.33333333..... equates to 10... but technically speaking, the calculation would take forever to complete.... and then more time....."

     "or at least trying to make logical steps.".... urm logical steps.... aka calculations.... "logic has nothing to do with calculations"..... Contradictions much? 

    """A calculation is a careful, thought-out activity. The first kind of calculation involves figuring out the answer to a problem in math — the kind you might use a calculator for. Calculation also refers to using logic to figure out a non-numerical problem."""

    Lewri [1762864]

    Absolutely no contradiction given you are the only person saying that logic is calculations. That is completely wrong, calculations are based on logic, not the other way round.

    If you arent going to add anything useful to this and instead just choose to go in circles making stuff up and hospitalising me then I cba anymore. I'm gonna get back to writing my report now.
    Loooool.... Read through what you have written... What "useful" did you yourself add? You said it was wrong... but not why.

    Calculations do not have to be "mathematical".... though logic is always mathematical.... (I'm 99% sure <-math logic)

    Did i hospitalise you? or are you assuming that i did? What is the probability with the given information.... Assumptions are not very logical.... You gonna act on those assumptions?

    fwUaiQx.png

    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 19:43:25 - 06/02/19 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    I think of it being more along the lines of preparing a valedictorian speech, except that the speech is being made to yourself, and the only reason you're valedictorian is because you're the only person in your class, as this is a journey of self-discovery. So, who is your audience, and how do you talk to them?

    First, consider that the conscious mind, while more immediately accessable and pliable, is in actuality only a small fraction of the self. This is why people can have "temporary insanity" do blackouts, and so on. The body (bodymind, if you'd rather) can make itself think, believe, or do almost anything. This is not, however, done randomly, but as a part of a more systemic form of feedback loop, very much in tune with the totality of environment.

    That means mankind is ultimately a part of the biosphere, and that feedback loop, while not nessicarily provably or quantifiably operating from that perspective, from a reasonable evolutionary stance, it can be surmised easily enough. A species can accept that it will die out and be replaced by something more advanced. If you're proactive enough, your genetic sludge might feed into its formation, maybe.

    So your "speech" would end up being merely an acceptance of your ultimate place as an offshoot of your bloodline, within the framework of your ethnic background, within the lifestream of humanity, as it intertwines of the other flora and fauna of the planet, and you would simply have to speak to it in those terms. Its unfortunate that more people don't have much nice to say at this level. That's why I don't normally participate in these discussions.

    I'm musing, not arguing, remember? I guess I could argue if I wanted. I really don't,
    Last edited by BlnkSugarSocket on 19:45:27 - 06/02/19
Reply
Thread Title: