Re: Mike Helland Reading List

On Mar 26, 4:07 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

Indeed.

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

Did he succeed is the formulation correct... do you know.. doubt it

<snip>


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

Then come back when this happens, did you even read the link I
posted... doubt that too...

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

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

Then if the work is mathematical, being done by someone who
understands it then your an irrelevant cog in this machine...
congrats.... on your new found irrelevance...

<snip>

I said nearly to avoid trite nit-picking.

Sorry mike science is about details not your area of strength....

<snip> whining

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

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

Look up mathematical modeling... before you embarrass yourself

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.

not like what you specified... but then again you don't understand the
concept of virtual in the context of computers, you probably think
virtual memory emerges from the complexity of the computer software or
some foolish idea like that...

and you specified the observer comes from the complexity of the model,
more bull***...

          /\/\/\/\/\/\
More ideas that you failed to grok.

<snip>

Mike the day you understand something I don't will never happen on
this earth, or in your life time...

<snip>

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

Great, read some physics... oh wait you wouldn't understand it, its
one of the many in fact to numerous to count topics you can't grok, so
if I can't grok your crackpot conjecture I don't feel to bad...

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

I actually did provide you a list of books, then you started pissing
and moaning about no money or time... so until you kiss my feet and
beg and show that you read the books I suggested in my first post on
this topic I shall give you no more citations... not to mention I am
allergic to spoon feeding ignoramuses like you...

<snip>


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

Says you....and you don't know physics and can't grok the math that
goes with observer models..I ask, how would you know?

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.

oh yes, I am just starting...

How many of those do you know?

So far one monkey, you... and you seem to be a good example, you still
want the banana I offered you...

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 yourmikehellandboy genius who doesn't even know basic
differential equations...

Equations.

That's your religion.

No you just say that because you can't grok them..

Not mine.

Because your to lazy to learn anything that fails to pop into your
little mind... so of course since your utterly terrified and befuddled
by new information apparently, you'd try to foist your own ignorance
on everyone else...

So the fact that I understand math means its my religion, your the
only one who'd say that and your reason is because you can't grok the
math... your an idiot...

Mine is programs.

Cash register software... not programs mike... sorry.. my little cash
register programmer who thinks he thinks big thoughts... if you want
encouragement look to your mother...


<snip>

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

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

Opinion papers unverified or disproven congrats you have a great start
here

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

You don't know the rules, so don't cite the rules to me...

A conjecture is by definition, unfalsifiable.

You don't have a conjecture and you hide behind semantics to protect
your idea from the cold hard light of day... just further evidence
that you know your wrong, and don't want to admit it...

<snip>


Piffle

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.

no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
conjecture without a computer... sorry...

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

You are thinking in mike helland imaginary land, and where things are
the way you want them to be... sorry mike you are the only one who
lives in that little fantasy land...

If you ever care to learn about how to think 30 years ahead start by
learning physics, math... and computer science... , then you can talk
about being 30 years ahead, at the moment your nowhere, lost in the
sea of your own ignorance....

<snip>

Unless I'm really lucky.

Ok, given a million years you may make progress..ok.. fine...

Like a monkey at a typewriter.

To true mike you are a monkey with a typewriter to say you use it is
going to far...

<snip>

I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,

You don't comprehend the second set.

Actually I do, and its wrong as I have shown you...

You said it isn't possible.

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

So I say its impossible to run across the ocean with no assistance...
all that means is I don't understand how to do it? your a moron...

<snip>

do you even think before you spew this stuff you write... if you do
don't tell me I'll spare you the embarrassment of admitting that this
the best you can do...

Cheers
.