XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/5/25 2:08 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 04/05/2025 11:59 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >> On 4/5/25 1:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 04/05/2025 11:23 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)