Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:16 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:38 am
Logik,
You jump into the most conventional belief system like a cheap slut on food stamps jumps into the bed of the first promising millionaire.

Your name is a misnomer. You are not logical, no more so than the farcial Spock character on old Star Trek episodes-- you're a con man, like him.
To the casual reader. What is Greylorn attempting to do here?

Lets start with our plausible hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Greylorn is trying to expose Logik as a fraud.
Hypothesis 2: Greylorn is drawing the spotlight away from himself so as to avoid being exposed as a fraud.

Which one is true? What better way to start 2019 than to find out!

Also, since good science requires accurate predictions: I predict that Greylorn is not a scientist. He's a just a silly tools operator. He knows how to use logic/mathematics, but he has no clue how or why they work. He doesn't understand the limits of his own tools so he keeps tripping over circular reasoning.

I predict that I will find a flaw in Greylorn's belief-system (be it infinite regress, circular reasoning, hypocrisy or a contradiction). That is if he cares to allow for his beliefs to be scrutinised (which I doubt - given his grumpy old age).
How logical is it to believe that a universe in which every action arises from the interaction of at least two opposing forces might have come into existence by the spontaneous uncaused action of a single entity?
Because we aren't talking about what happens IN the universe. We are talking about where the universe (all of it!) came from.

It seems I am being accused of believing in uncaused causes. Lets get right down to ontological matters.

Can you explain to all of us mortals the two opposing forces from which photons arise?
Genuine logic operates independently of agreement systems, whereas you merely suck their teats.
Sadly, you are wrong. All logic systems emerge from rules: axioms, semantics and grammar.

So if you could be so kind as to openly state the axioms, semantics and grammar of the the logic which you call "genuine logic" - you will be doing us mere mortals a favour.
Your beliefs are dreadfully ordinary. Why present them on a forum open to non-conventional ideas?
You only believe that your beliefs are "extraordinary and unconventional”. They fall into the same old patterns logicians and mathematicians have been yawning about for centuries.
Old ideas dressed in new words.

You are no free thinker. You are a slave of your tools. You are no logician - you "suck at their teats". Nobody is wasting your time except your own dogma.
Logik,
It seems as though I've pissed you off. Too bad we can't engage our conversation in a friendly tavern over a few beers, where we could see and feel each other's mind and freely piss each other off. So, working with written language, let's do our best to get it on.

Firstly, I'm not trying to expose you as a fraud. Being a fraud would require more talent. I'm merely trying to point out that you're another pinheaded philosopher wanna-be who doesn't know shit from Shinola, just another idiot who can form sentences.

Curious that you brought up the "fraud" notion. Are you one in real life?

I do not think that I, personally, am a fraud, although I've had some being-human and learning-from-screwups experiences.

Every belief of mine has been published, so kindly do not accuse me of failing to disclose them.

The book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" by Greylorn Ell was published in 2012. It was not written to be popular, and was not, so although Amazon has various reviews for it, none by anyone who actually understood it, they no longer stock it. I have copies available but since you did not pick up the book after it was easily available, you'll surely not be willing to get a copy from me. I doubt that you would be capable of understanding the concepts it proposes, and therefore will be incapable of disproving them. So don't waste your bitching-about-nothing time by actually reading what you're bitching about.

Had you taken the trouble to read my profile, you might have known this. You might also have found something I declared about myself that would warrant the claim of "fraudulent." But you did not do that. Had you done so, you'd not have presented me as a scientist, because I made my limited credentials perfectly clear. You're just another mindless shit-slinger, just another liberal progressive asshole.

You've accused me of not understanding physics and math, of being a "tool user." Of course I use tools. They are useful. I own an extensive set of them, from carpentry, woodworking, metalworking, vehicular repair, etc, because I build things and fix things that others build. Anyone who doesn't have and use tools is not as useful as he could be, or as I am.

Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.

Are you still living in your mother's attic?

GL

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:36 pm

I accused you of not understanding the limits of your tools. For all tools have limits.

Going beyond the limits of what your tools permit always comes with “caveat emptor”.
And yet I am watching you making reckless claims well beyond the limits of what logic/mathematics permits.

I gusss because you think that is how “unconventional” ideas are born - stringing speculative bullshit together and hope you get lucky.

You say you build/fix things, then you probably know that the value of the things you build is determined by those who use them.

So which of your work had been adopted by anyone beyond your tool shed?

I guess that why your book flopped. Because your ideas were useless.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:33 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:36 pm
I accused you of not understanding the limits of your tools. For all tools have limits.

Going beyond the limits of what your tools permit always comes with “caveat emptor”.
And yet I am watching you making reckless claims well beyond the limits of what logic/mathematics permits.

I gusss because you think that is how “unconventional” ideas are born - stringing speculative bullshit together and hope you get lucky.

You say you build/fix things, then you probably know that the value of the things you build is determined by those who use them.

So which of your work had been adopted by anyone beyond your tool shed?

I guess that why your book flopped. Because your ideas were useless.
You're missing the point, dipstick, and trying to divert attention from a potentially useful conversation. The point came about because you accused me of not making my ideas available. They have always been available since 2010, at a net profit to me of about $1.25 for every book sold. Thousands of hours writing it. Pennies per hour.

And here you are, you crummy piece of shit, whining about a book you've never read, and never will read because you are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend its broad scope of ideas. You are clearly a progressive liberal pinhead who' is not even competent enough to employ the feedback from this site's spell-checker. It's "guess," not gusss. Pass that tidbit of information along to the nitwit fan club, which I know that you can do because you must be a charter member. -GL

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Logik » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:08 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:33 am
Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:36 pm
I accused you of not understanding the limits of your tools. For all tools have limits.

Going beyond the limits of what your tools permit always comes with “caveat emptor”.
And yet I am watching you making reckless claims well beyond the limits of what logic/mathematics permits.

I gusss because you think that is how “unconventional” ideas are born - stringing speculative bullshit together and hope you get lucky.

You say you build/fix things, then you probably know that the value of the things you build is determined by those who use them.

So which of your work had been adopted by anyone beyond your tool shed?

I guess that why your book flopped. Because your ideas were useless.
You're missing the point, dipstick, and trying to divert attention from a potentially useful conversation. The point came about because you accused me of not making my ideas available. They have always been available since 2010, at a net profit to me of about $1.25 for every book sold. Thousands of hours writing it. Pennies per hour.

And here you are, you crummy piece of shit, whining about a book you've never read, and never will read because you are insufficiently intelligent to comprehend its broad scope of ideas. You are clearly a progressive liberal pinhead who' is not even competent enough to employ the feedback from this site's spell-checker. It's "guess," not gusss. Pass that tidbit of information along to the nitwit fan club, which I know that you can do because you must be a charter member. -GL
No, dipshit.

I accused you of being unwilling to have your belief scrutinized.

A book is a monologue, not a dialogue.
You don’t strike me as a guy who takes feedback very well.

And you are correct. I read enough of
http://www.beon-cpt.com/index.htm to know I will never read it in full.

Ideas are worth less than toilet paper if they are untestable. I don’t have much interest in fiction.

If nobody is reading or using your work, I guess you wasted your time publishing it, huh?

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:26 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
You told me some months back that I'm not familiar with the problem and should read the book, but do you understand the problem yourself? Do you mean that calculus can't apply to the discrete quantum behaviour we are bound to, or quantum behaviour in general which is probably continuous/superpositional?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:08 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:26 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
You told me some months back that I'm not familiar with the problem and should read the book, but do you understand the problem yourself? Do you mean that calculus can't apply to the discrete quantum behaviour we are bound to, or quantum behaviour in general which is probably continuous/superpositional?
Given the limits of physics there is no such thing as "continuous" in this universe.

Distance = speed*time

The smallest distance you can measure is Planck length.
The fastest speed is light.

ℓP/c is the smallest conceivable unit of time. If anything oscillates faster than this interval it would be the Black Swan of physics.

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:15 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:08 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:26 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
You told me some months back that I'm not familiar with the problem and should read the book, but do you understand the problem yourself? Do you mean that calculus can't apply to the discrete quantum behaviour we are bound to, or quantum behaviour in general which is probably continuous/superpositional?
Given the limits of physics there is no such thing as "continuous" in this universe.

Distance = speed*time

The smallest distance you can measure is Planck length.
The fastest speed is light.

ℓP/c is the smallest conceivable unit of time. If anything oscillates faster than this interval it would be the Black Swan of physics.
You are still far from starting to understand this Timeseeker. You don't see the inherent circularity of being bound to Planck units and discreteness while "measuring", and the mistake of equating that with the universe, seeing it as the only conceivable.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:19 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:15 am
You don't see the inherent circularity of being bound to Planck units and discreteness while "measuring", and the mistake of equating that with the universe, seeing it as the only conceivable.
Of course it's circular. Welcome to the epistemic problem of the human condition. Measurement is how we obtain evidence. The Planck units and the speed of light impose a limit on us as to how frequently we can sample evidence. If any changes happen faster than that interval - it is beyond our ability to detect it.

If you make any claims about the properties of the universe beyond that which we can measure e.g obtain evidence for then I bow out of your religious discussion.

Hypotheses non fingo.

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Atla » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:28 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:19 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:15 am
You don't see the inherent circularity of being bound to Planck units and discreteness while "measuring", and the mistake of equating that with the universe, seeing it as the only conceivable.
Of course it's circular. Welcome to the epistemic problem of the human condition. Measurement is how we obtain evidence. The Planck units and the speed of light impose a limit on us as to how frequently we can sample evidence. If any changes happen faster than that interval - it is beyond our ability to detect it.

If you make any claims about the properties of the universe beyond that which we can measure e.g obtain evidence for then I bow out of your religious discussion.

Hypotheses non fingo.
No one alive has figured out what "measurement" actually is in physics, but like most people you don't even know about / understand the problem about it. Your replies have basically nothing to do with what I write about in such comments.
But you are brighter than most people so maybe in a few years you can get there, most people have 0 chance.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:33 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:28 am
No one alive has figured out what "measurement" actually is in physics, but like most people you don't even know about / understand the problem about it.
Measurement is the quantification of change. Measurement is calculus despite Greylorn's objection. Which begs the question: change in respect to what? Calculus happens to be change in respect to time, but it doesn't have to be.

Change can be in respect to any other quantity which we assume to be "unchanging"! But unchanging things don't exist.

Which is why entanglement is so promising. Two things unchanging in respect to one another a consensus makes. It is the ontological foundationalist' wet dream.

But to connect this back to my previous argument. If you have two waves oscillating.
Wave A has a period of ℓP/c seconds
Wave B has a period of of ℓP/2c seconds

If A and B are in phase, a human cannot discern that they have different frequencies given current technology/tools/understanding.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:31 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:26 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
You told me some months back that I'm not familiar with the problem and should read the book, but do you understand the problem yourself? Do you mean that calculus can't apply to the discrete quantum behaviour we are bound to,

Atla,
I meant exactly what I wrote. Specifically, differential calculus does not apply to QM at all, and cannot. Integral calculus offers a wider range of approximations, a.k.a. fudge factors, and is pretty much what QM uses to obtain functional models.

With enough fudge factors any mathematical model will work. We all know that Newtonian physics is not a complete model of mechanical behavior. Nonetheless, it got us to the moon and back, and to Pluto, etc. It is used to place satellites in geosynchronous orbits-- where many of them depend upon principles of General Relativity to perform their work.

However we all know that Newtonian mechanics is an imperfect model. Even within its non-relativistic applications, fudge factors are required to make it work in extreme situations. For example, rocket scientists don't bother to account for the third derivative of x/t (the derivative of acceleration (a.k.a. "jerk")) because measuring it is too difficult. It's the effect you'll feel for the next week if you fire off a 3" 12-gauge shotgun round without holding the gunstock tightly to your body. It's the effect that Bruce Lee learned to use, that amplified his strikes to double or more the instantaneous force that someone of his small physical size could be expected to deliver.

Engineers are the people who translate theoretical physics into working machines, and they learned early on to introduce fudge factors, a.k.a. "kludges," into their implementations. They compensated for things like "jerk" effects by analyzing the feedback from test launches and factoring it into their application of Newtonian mechanics.

QM and GR are incompatible with one another in a deeply fundamental way, nothing to do with fudge factors. Physicists acknowledge that. Any idiot can deduce from this that something is wrong--- but what? Anyone who reads Conan Doyle mysteries and has a functional mind can accept that since the evidence for QM and the evidence for GR are not refutable, the error can only reside in our interpretations (our mathematical models) of these physical behaviors.

Your question zeroed into the issue effectively. Differential calculus does not and cannot apply to the quantum behavior that we observe, and to which we appear to be bound (though I'm not clear on what you mean by that, and don't think it's relevant to this conversation).

You wrote, "...or quantum behaviour in general which is probably continuous/superpositional?" Huh? You'll need to clarify this comment, because at is, it is horseshit. Quantum behavior is, by its nature, not continuous. That's what quantization means. That's the insight that allowed Max Planck to correctly model black-box radiation and discover the relationship between energy and radiation frequency.

Greylorn

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Before sliding down the bannister supported by Occam's Razor, wear iron pants.

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:42 pm

What is wrong is QM and GR’s incompatible conceptions of time.

Which is why it is called “the problem of
Time”.

It is also why calculus “doesn’t work”. We aren’t measuring time correctly in the quantum realm.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:19 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:15 am
You don't see the inherent circularity of being bound to Planck units and discreteness while "measuring", and the mistake of equating that with the universe, seeing it as the only conceivable.
Of course it's circular. Welcome to the epistemic problem of the human condition. Measurement is how we obtain evidence. The Planck units and the speed of light impose a limit on us as to how frequently we can sample evidence. If any changes happen faster than that interval - it is beyond our ability to detect it.

If you make any claims about the properties of the universe beyond that which we can measure e.g obtain evidence for then I bow out of your religious discussion.

Hypotheses non fingo.
Logik, you asshole, you're trying to hijack my thread. Get off here. If you want to start your own thread about measurement, go ahead and do that.

I don't have the time and energy to deal with pinheads like you and your pot-fueled pointless mini-theories.

Greylorn

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:06 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:54 pm
I don't have the time and energy to deal with pinheads like you and your pot-fueled pointless mini-theories.
They aren't my theories, pinhead. They are the theories of just about everyone who is being swayed towards digital physics.
You are one of those peons, aren't you? I mean your book has "digital universe" in its title.

If reality is digital you aren't accounting for universal time vs system time ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_time ).

To say it another way. The way we are currently quantifying time is a fudge factor!

Atla
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Start with what you know, don't make shit up along the way.

Post by Atla » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:43 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:31 pm
Atla wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:26 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:17 pm
Regarding understanding, can you explain why calculus does not apply, and cannot apply, to quantum physics? If not, you'll find the explanation in my book.
You told me some months back that I'm not familiar with the problem and should read the book, but do you understand the problem yourself? Do you mean that calculus can't apply to the discrete quantum behaviour we are bound to,

Atla,
I meant exactly what I wrote. Specifically, differential calculus does not apply to QM at all, and cannot. Integral calculus offers a wider range of approximations, a.k.a. fudge factors, and is pretty much what QM uses to obtain functional models.

With enough fudge factors any mathematical model will work. We all know that Newtonian physics is not a complete model of mechanical behavior. Nonetheless, it got us to the moon and back, and to Pluto, etc. It is used to place satellites in geosynchronous orbits-- where many of them depend upon principles of General Relativity to perform their work.

However we all know that Newtonian mechanics is an imperfect model. Even within its non-relativistic applications, fudge factors are required to make it work in extreme situations. For example, rocket scientists don't bother to account for the third derivative of x/t (the derivative of acceleration (a.k.a. "jerk")) because measuring it is too difficult. It's the effect you'll feel for the next week if you fire off a 3" 12-gauge shotgun round without holding the gunstock tightly to your body. It's the effect that Bruce Lee learned to use, that amplified his strikes to double or more the instantaneous force that someone of his small physical size could be expected to deliver.

Engineers are the people who translate theoretical physics into working machines, and they learned early on to introduce fudge factors, a.k.a. "kludges," into their implementations. They compensated for things like "jerk" effects by analyzing the feedback from test launches and factoring it into their application of Newtonian mechanics.

QM and GR are incompatible with one another in a deeply fundamental way, nothing to do with fudge factors. Physicists acknowledge that. Any idiot can deduce from this that something is wrong--- but what? Anyone who reads Conan Doyle mysteries and has a functional mind can accept that since the evidence for QM and the evidence for GR are not refutable, the error can only reside in our interpretations (our mathematical models) of these physical behaviors.

Your question zeroed into the issue effectively. Differential calculus does not and cannot apply to the quantum behavior that we observe, and to which we appear to be bound (though I'm not clear on what you mean by that, and don't think it's relevant to this conversation).

You wrote, "...or quantum behaviour in general which is probably continuous/superpositional?" Huh? You'll need to clarify this comment, because at is, it is horseshit. Quantum behavior is, by its nature, not continuous. That's what quantization means. That's the insight that allowed Max Planck to correctly model black-box radiation and discover the relationship between energy and radiation frequency.

Greylorn
They found quantized quantum behaviour and non-quantized quantum behaviour, from which the particlelike-wavelike duality was born. "Duality" is kinda misleading here, because quantized behaviour may simply be an extremely special case of general quantum behaviour, and wavelike the most common case.

We are somehow always bound to quantized behaviour, which is the central mistery of QM. That calculus isn't compatible with it, or that GR and QM aren't compatible, is I think probably so because space and time aren't fundamental, space and time simply are how the quantum world is arranged in the observable universe.

General quantum behaviour is probably spaceless, timeless, infinitely superpositional, can be seen as more or less continuous. Focusing on the quantized behaviour is somewhat backwards.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest