Re: Mike Helland Reading List

On Mar 26, 12:40 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:24 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>



Post the link where you found the paper prove me wrong....

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fvs3sw9ZVfsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=q...

He says the Lorentz transformation may be interpreted as the
correspondences between internal worlds. Page 114

You don't even know what the lorentz transformation is... not to
mention to say that you'd have to show that mathematically since the
lorentz transformation is a mathematical concept...


Indeed.

And the whole purpose of Teruaki Nakagomi's work is to formulate
quantum monadology mathematically.

He says: to this end, we must refine quantum monadology, in particular
we need an explicit form of the interaction between monad-images.

Last sentence, page 125:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fvs3sw9ZVfsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=quantum+monadology&source=web&ots=4iyxRSKhQg&sig=YGiRtV136hpxRrWJnPUwcCzXZwY&hl=en#PPA125,M1



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

read the article understand the math, turn monads into a mathematical
concept, and prove it... you can't prove it, you don't understand the
math.. and you cite a source that doesn't prove it, so hence I say
your still wrong...


He also says, page 115, that we can't know whether it's right or wrong
until the mathematics is completed.

That's the point with conjecture vrs hypothesis I've been making.

I'm sure that point will be easy for you to ignore.


That's nearly what I said about time dilation and relativity in my
model:

Nearly doesn't count... not to mention the fact you don't understand
the math and thus cannot make or prove an argument on that point....
and since you don't understand physics by your own admission your not
qualified to make these statements... your in fact to stupid to
understand the implications of your own ideas, ie no implications, or
even how to prove them... and too foolish to admit your wrong when
shown...


I said nearly to avoid trite nit-picking.

Not sure. Nitpicking the ideas themselves would be much too direct for
you.


"I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of
information)

No you said develop a computer model of the world.. that doesn't imply
a virtual environment... if you knew anything about modeling in
science you'd know that one doesn't imply the other.... so you
actually did not propose that... the difference between VR and a
scientific model... idiot... you use them interchangeably and their
not...


If the computer world has a popuation, what is the environment of that
population?


I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
set of information).

No you said to sets of information one is completely virtual, which is
of course bull*** since you cannot have purely virtual resources...


But you can still have virtual resources.



and you specified the observer comes from the complexity of the model,
more bull***...
/\/\/\/\/\/\
More ideas that you failed to grok.

HTH!


you never made the same argument about the
observer... in fact you still have failed to read anything about
observers in models... hmmm big surprise... your just in love with
your own worthless ignorance...


I'm reading about connectionism. Which is what I've found so far.

You have a great method.

1. tell me I'm dumb
2. tell me there is stuff out there
3. refuse to tell me their names or provide cites
4. tell me I'm dumb

Probably doesn't require much effort either.


I should have said there should be internal observers. Plural.

Yeah, doesn't change anything... doesn't make your wrong argument
right...


One program that contains multiple internal observers can make
predictions for relative speed from two different reference frames.



Many models within the model.

Your just parroting now...

Their variations are important.

Parrot...

I predict my conjecture will explain time dilation and length
contraction by using more than one observer. "http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1da71af6012924f7

You strung random thoughts together and made little sense if you take
them charitably.. of course I can stick a bunch of monkeys in a room
with typewriters and eventually they'll compose Shakespeare... so your
a monkey composing science... congrats... let me send you a banana

Just off the top of your head.

How many of those do you know?


He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
with physics or not."

Yeah, and have you done that... no your to stupid to do that... this
also what people have been saying for years... to you and did you
listen no your mike helland boy genius who doesn't even know basic
differential equations...

Equations.

That's your religion.

Not mine.

Mine is programs.


That's indirectly relevant, because until a conjecture becomes a
hypothesis, it is not falsifiable.

It is falsifiable at all points conjecture or not... and your
conjecture is false... sorry.... as shown by numerous people.. on this
and other groups...


It's an essential concept in information science to falsify in step 3.

In the context of monadology, that hasn't been reached yet.

Not in my paper. Not in Nakagomi's. Not in Cahill's.

Not my rules. You're arguing against established science here.

A conjecture is by definition, unfalsifiable.

Because a hypothesis by definition is falsifiable.

That's the distinguishing characteristic between conjecture and
hypothesis.

So no. My conjecture has not been falsified.

The only criticism I have actually found to be valid, and please feel
free to supply more, is that current information technology can't
handle a project of the scope required.

But I'm thinking 30 years out, and that the capacity for information
processing will continue to develop.



I admit my ideas have a ways to go along the steps of the scientific
method.

You're using that to act as if they are still at the starting gates.

Because they are, as evidenced by the fact you don't understand
physics... and can't possibly evaluate where you are...

Unless I'm really lucky.

Like a monkey at a typewriter.


But only your understanding of monadology. You have yet to take the
first step to understanding: wanting to understand.

I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,


You don't comprehend the second set.

You said it isn't possible.

Which just means nothing more than you can't conceive it.


as I have shown and others have
too.... Just because you can find one paper that agrees with you is
meaningless... esp. when the paper is an opinion paper... the problem
here is your so ignorant you can't even judge what is a good source...
in fact thanks to the internet you can find "scholarly papers" to
support anything... you can find papers to support 32D SuperGravity
theory, one of the most bogus theories of gravity ever... your
citation proves nothing...

And in fact if you understood how to make a scientific argument you'd
know that justing having on source is not good enough... sources have
to be quality and they have to prove the point your making... the
point your making requires a mathematical proof, neither you nor your
source provide that... thus your ideas are nothing but piffle...


The source should be your own imagination. Not the scientific
authorities.
.