XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/5/25 3:48 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   > On 4/5/25 2:48 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >> On 04/05/2025 12:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)