XPost: sci.math
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 10/23/2025 02:13 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/22/2025 02:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/20/2025 02:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/19/2025 01:07 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/19/2025 06:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 'The Theory of Everything is an overarching hypothetical framework
> >>>>>>>>>> that would explain the physics of the entire universe in a single
> >>>>>>>>>> equation. But unifying theories that define the large-scale
> >>>>>>>>>> cosmological structure of the universe with those that describe
the
> >>>>>>>>>> minuscule quantum world of the subatomic particles has been a
> >>>>>>>>>> challenge for over a century.'
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The key word here is... unifying.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, if energy is mass, and mass is energy...how come it's not
> >>>>>>>>>> called energymass? or massenergy??
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I mean, if you want to unifying..then EM, not e=m.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or energymass.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Lets get this TOE started. Get it right!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> explain the physics of the entire universe in a single equation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is TOE a single equation of the entire universe?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> or an abbreviation?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So you misunderstood that too.
> >>>>>>>>> The problem is not putting everything in a single equation.
> >>>>>>>>> That is trivial, the 'Great Feynman Equation' for example will do.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The point is having no free parameters,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's pragmatic and begins to attain to a theory,
> >>>>>>>> yet eventually a "theory of everything" is actually
> >>>>>>>> involving also the mathematics and the logic and
> >>>>>>>> the philosophy and even the metaphysics of it all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I.e., a theory of everything is about the parameters that are free.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is you who is thoroughly confused.
> >>>>>>> If there are free parameters in it it isn't the TOE,
> >>>>>>> by definition, (because it leaves things to be explained)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, that's just a closed form and physics is an open system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A non-sequitur, whether true or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I sort of helped explain this to one of the bots and
> >>>>>> it really agrees,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now that is a really conclusive argument,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [snip more misunderstandings about what the TOE is]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's a riddle of induction as Goodman might put it,
> >>>> yours.
> >>>
> >>> If induction could do it we would have had it long ago,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >> Induction can't complete itself.
> >
> > And less than that.
> > If induction could do it we would have had it long ago,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> Of course, induction is perfectly regular,
> when the objects of mathematics like a
> continuous domain exist, thus to be able
> to use something like the geometric series
> to make something like the integral calculus
> its fundamental theorems more strongly rigorous.
>
> It's more like you lack the super-classical thinking
> and the experience of the exercise of post-paradox reasoning,
> instead that you just ride the coat-tails and clamber upon
> your giants, then Emperor's new clothes yourself all high.
>
> Not to mention all your insane outputs of the invincibly-ignorant
> yet so wrong the howler troll variety, those also reflecting on you.
I don't output verbiage to hide that I have nothing to say,
like you do all the time,
Jan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
