Re: Absolute reality -> mind -> Relative Reality

On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip> worthless mental sputum, or snot....

"What is NKS?

It is a new kind of science based on simple programs. Almost all the
science that's been done for the past three hundred or so years has
been based in the end on the idea that things in our universe somehow
follow rules that can be represented by traditional mathematical
equations. The basic idea that underlies A New Kind of Science is that
that's much too restrictive, and that in fact one should consider the
vastly more general kinds of rules that can be embodied, for example,
in computer programs.

Instead of asking what mathematical equation some system obeys, it
asks what simple program produces the behavior seen in that system.
Pure NKS investigates how various types of simple programs typically
behave - much as traditional mathematics examines various mathematical
equations. Applied NKS then looks for simple programs behind the
behavior seen in natural and other systems. "

http://forum.wolframscience.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=2#whatnks


Congrats you cited a source....

You believe mathematics requires equations.

You can't understand the alternative, nor do you want to.


Mike you have never had a single NKS idea in your life, your theory
doesn't fit in NKS, sorry that won't save your idea from the utter
failure that it is.

The issue is that NKS relies on simple programs, your idea doesn't
sorry mikey your wrong.... by the way do you even know what a simple
program is?

<snip> Mike talking

The mathematics for QM are not the only ones.


Hmmm.... and how would you know since you don't show any understanding
of math for example what is the 1 dimensional form of the Fourier
Transform? Any idea?

You have never even solved the Schroedinger equation. How the ***
would you know?

Leibniz.

Leibniz if he was alive today could solve the Schroedinger equation,
you can't thus I bequeath thee the title of Mikeus Ignoramus
Maximus...

<snip> babble

If you can model enough classical phenomena to model these tests, then
yes, you are about 50% done.

Mike you have no idea where the tunnel is much less where the end
is...

It's not like there are more experiments regarding entanglement than
there are regarding classical electricity.


Oh wise Mikeus Ignoramus Maximus please teach us.... tell me oh
teacher what is entanglement? What are the mathematical equations that
describe the state of two entangled atoms?

<snip>

If the experiment is to be explained by my hypothesis, the
photoelectric effect, along with a good deal of chemistry already has
to be present.

Thus why nothing will ever be explained by your hypothesis because
nobody would spend as much time as you have on this dead end. You have
spent four years and gotten nowhere, you just waste your life coming
up with wrong ideas...

So lets do a little informal test to prove me wrong Mikey boy:

Don't worry these are topics you have mentioned and I'm sure you
understand already, in fact I'll give you the titles of the books
where the answers can be found and since I am sure you already have an
extensive library on the topic of physics you probably own these
books.

So lets begin... the Mikeus Ignoramus or not test:

Books:
Quantum Theory by David Bohm
Theoretical Nuclear Physics by Blatt, Weisskopf

Question 1: Give me a definition of what a harmonic oscillator is and
its function in Quantum Theory.

Question 2: What is the mathematical forumulation of the first
conservation law of nuclear reactions?

Question 3: What is an example of an adiabatic change?

Bonus Question: Define for me the Pauli Principle in your own words

Bonus Question 2: What is the Biot-Savart Law in your own words?

No using wikipedia mike and copying and pasting this has to be mike
demonstrating is superior knowledge of the physics he talks about you
must cite your sources for each scholarly articles.

Cheers
.