XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/5/25 11:16 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:   
   > Ross Finlayson submitted this idea :   
   >> On 04/04/2025 09:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>> On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>> On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the   
   >>>>> reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only   
   >>>>> possible   
   >>>>> but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the crude   
   >>>>> positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth:   
   >>>>> abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of their   
   >>>>> being.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the fractures in   
   >>>>> their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null axiom   
   >>>>> delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a higher   
   >>>>> order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an   
   >>>>> invitation   
   >>>>> — a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s   
   >>>>> unyielding depth.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, and   
   >>>>> locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The   
   >>>>> decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’   
   >>>>> errand; the   
   >>>>> total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen Physfit's   
   >>>>> dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin   
   >>>>> echoing the   
   >>>>> nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called fictitious   
   >>>>> forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — energy   
   >>>>> flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their truncated   
   >>>>> Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among   
   >>>>> them   
   >>>>> has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the ouroboros   
   >>>>> hiss its eternal truth?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about virtual   
   >>>>> particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their sinking   
   >>>>> paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a deeper   
   >>>>> geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface   
   >>>>> of the   
   >>>>> Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their   
   >>>>> crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich   
   >>>>> meets   
   >>>>> the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical   
   >>>>> harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But when   
   >>>>> their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths collapse   
   >>>>> into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the   
   >>>>> stamp   
   >>>>> of truth, unlike their noise, is forever.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Ross A. Kosmanson   
   >>>>> April 4, 2025   
   >>>>> Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's   
   >>>> been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired   
   >>>> Kosmanson.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's interest   
   >>>> in more of it and if it costs you I could front it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he volunteer,   
   >>>> given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at all,   
   >>>> yet, something, at all.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the   
   >>>> super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while   
   >>>> others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles.   
   >>>> (... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable   
   >>>> and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on   
   >>>> the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.)   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one   
   >>>> of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua,   
   >>>> that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous   
   >>>> domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality   
   >>>> of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive impasse,   
   >>>> have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness   
   >>>> of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and   
   >>>> then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether   
   >>>> that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN   
   >>>> mathematics,   
   >>>> that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its dumbness).   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you   
   >>>> weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have   
   >>>> a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's   
   >>>> that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd   
   >>>> be quite more to it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an   
   >>> infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a blog   
   >>> for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one would   
   >>> begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but   
   >>> would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of   
   >>> course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that problem   
   >>> had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities.   
   >>>   
   >>> Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem:   
   >>>   
   >>> (beginning of the quote)   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>    "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light   
   >>> went   
   >>> back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an   
   >>> opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was   
   >>> horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room!   
   >>>   
   >>> He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself quite   
   >>> hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had   
   >>> waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas area.   
   >>>   
   >>> He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 hours has   
   >>> passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look inside   
   >>> refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had cooked on   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)