Re: Absolute reality -> mind -> Relative Reality

On Mar 10, 3:26 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:10 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 10, 2:50 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, MichaelHelland<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.

Mikeyou 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?

Yes.

Here is the simple program in my paper:

* Setup Initial Conditions

public oAbsoluteMatter
oAbsoluteMatter = createobject("collection")
oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10, 2,
0, 0))
oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 0,
2, 0))

*Alternative Initial Conditions for a little more complexity

*public oAbsoluteMatter
*oAbsoluteMatter = createobject("collection")
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10,
20, 0, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 0,
2, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 10, 20, 10,
-10, 4, 1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 20, 10, 10, 1,
-2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 5, 30, 40,
-20, 35, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 605, 30, 25,
-10, 2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 100, 2, 10,
20, 50, 70))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 21, 10, 10, 4,
2, -10))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 12, 20, 10,
-1, -40, 1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", 1, 2, 10, 10, 1,
-2, -1))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 5, 6, 40, -20,
65, 0))
*oAbsoluteMatter.Add(createobject("absoluteMatter", -1, 0, 4, 25, 10,
-2, -1))

do while .t.

clear

for each oA in oAbsoluteMatter
oA.DoStuff()
endfor

wait window

enddo

* end of program

*class definitions
define class absoluteMatter as Custom
nType = 0
nX = 0
nY = 0
nZ = 0
nDx = 0
nDy = 0
nDz = 0

procedure Init(tnType, tnX, tnY, tnZ, tnDx, tnDy, tnDz)

this.nType = tnType
this.nX = tnX
this.nY = tnY
this.nZ = tnZ
this.nDx = tnDx
this.nDy = tnDy
this.nDz = tnDz

endproc

procedure DoStuff

* draw us visuall on the screen
?str(this.nType) + str(this.nX) + str(this.nY)
_screen.FillStyle = 0
_screen.FillColor = iif(this.nType = 1, rgb(255, 0, 0), rgb(0, 0,
255))
_screen.Circle(2, 100 + this.nX, 100 + this.nY)

* move inertially
this.nX = this.nX + this.nDx
this.nY = this.nY + this.nDy
this.nZ = this.nZ + this.nDz

* see if there's anything to interact with
for each oB in oAbsoluteMatter
lnDx = oB.nDx
lnDy = oB.nDy
lnDz = oB.nDz
oB.nDx = this.nDx
oB.nDy = this.nDy
oB.nDz = this.nDz
this.nDx = lnDx
this.nDy = lnDy
this.nDz = lnDz
endfor

endproc

enddefine

<snip>Miketalking

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.

Mikeyou 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 wikipediamikeand copying and pasting this has to bemike
demonstrating is superior knowledge of the physics he talks about you
must cite your sources for each scholarly articles.

Cheers

I don't know the answer to those questions.

There are also plenty of chemistry questions I don't know the answer
to. Or biology. Or astronomy.

My goal is not to advance any existing scientific field.

I don't have any new details.

My goal is to promote an accurate big picture, and let that guide us
toward new mathematical expressions.

I don't expect anyone to join the revolution on account of what I have
to say.

I do expect there are plenty of people already taking part in that
revolution, and I hope to meet up with them. (I've read about Wolfram,
Lanza, Smythies and a handful of others).

How can you revolutionize something you don't understand I asked basic
questions and yet your still ignorant...


Your argument is I can't solve the Schro. wave equation, thus, could
not revolutionize how it is done.

I completely agree.

I've said that before.

I also am more critical of myself than you are.

My conjecture and subsequent discussions with neurosurgeons suggests a
more profound understanding neuropsychology is also required to
complete the revolution my dumbass is suggesting.

So my dilemma is, do I study quantum chromodynamics?

Or neuroscience?

As I slowly work toward one of those ends (having no funding) the
prospect of collaborating with someone that has studied one those
topics is worth pursuing.

Which to you is worthy of insult.


Hmmm... so you don't know what your revolutionizing but your
revolutionizing it.. yes, your dumber then expected...

Physics is just a branch on the tree of knowledge.

The shift in thinking that will occur has a much broader scope.
.