Darwin's.
But knock yourself out, https://www.slideshare.net/fer.reche/ma ... -evolution
"Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities. Why it is controversial can be explained with the following:roydop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:33 pmSounds like you know what you're talking about. I have been waiting for someone to validate and confirm this for a long time. Even my good friend, who has a PhD (literally) in biology wouldn't confirm this for me. Maybe because I laid out the whole wacky theory at once and she didn't want to give me a starting point.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:51 pmYeah, you are on track, I will create a thread on this. All evolution is: "variation" which occurs through all linearly observed phenomena where in progressing past there origins (ie the number line in this case) and inherent "multiplicity" occurs.roydop wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be?
Would it not be the number system?
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Each progressive number arises from the "base" provided by the previous numbers, just as the emergence of a new species arises from the base of the source species, all the way back.
There is a tendency to overthink/overcomplicate this. Remember, the query is: What is the simplest model of the process of evolution?
I need this confirmed, as a large part of my theory is based on the premise that 1-9 could be interpreted as a model of evolution. Even better if it were to be proved that it is the simplest model possible of the process of evolution. I intuit it is. One that could be still interpreted by a certain level of sentience as relating to evolution.
Why does 1-9 have to relate to any other system? Why can't it relate directly to the consciousness engaged in it? Similarities may be due to the same fundamental process running in parallel, directly to consciousness and concluding there."Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities.
causes a "language game" to occur as the evolution of the sciences cause a paradoxical multiplicity of not just "sciences" but effectively the grounding "language". This "game" applies as it seperates into religion, math, psychology, etc.
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:36 pm Did you not read the link? If not why do you think you have simpler models than those?
Or maybe you're using the term "evolution" to not mean "Evolution"?
You don't understand this?That's a description of evolution. I'm not questioning how evolution works. A model is different.
To formulate a description of really anything all one needs is two symbols, e.g. binary code. There is no need for ten different symbols (eg the decimal system).
AlexW wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:40 amTo formulate a description of really anything all one needs is two symbols, e.g. binary code. There is no need for ten different symbols (eg the decimal system).
I think you are looking at this from a more spiritual perspective, so maybe look at it as a tree that has one stem which branches off into exactly two arms, each of these arms again branches into exactly two new arms - now continue this ad infinitum.
Under the surface, beyond the visible aspect of the tree is the "root" - the tree grows from the root, but the root itself is never visible.
Translate this idea into binary numbers:
0 = root (pure being/AM/brahman/absolute/self... etc... you get the drift)
1 = stem ( "I" am -- it is the the primary concept, the root of separation (not separation itself but the foundation for thought made separation) from which all other concepts spring)
10, 11, 100, 101 etc etc... are a repetition of the primary concept interspersed with zeros (root aka "space") which is generating a different (evolutionary?) layout of the primary "I am"/"the original thought" only referencing itself but disguising itself in the (apparently complex) pattern.
You still didn't read the link?roydop wrote: You don't understand this?
Vortex maths Ask Professor PuzzlerEodnhoj7 wrote:... "Vortex mathematics" is a beginning field and is controversial but is grounded in the 1-9 nature of numbers as quantities and qualities. Why it is controversial can be explained with the following: ...
Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:04 pmDarwin's.
But knock yourself out, https://www.slideshare.net/fer.reche/ma ... -evolution
Not sure what you mean? If I click on the slide show I see mathematical equations with English titles.commonsense wrote: Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?
Oh. I cannot run the slideshow at present. I assumed it would be labeled in the same language that appears on the launch page. I'll try dropping my firewall.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:47 pmNot sure what you mean? If I click on the slide show I see mathematical equations with English titles.commonsense wrote: Is it possible to view the slides with English subtitles?
At first I concurred with the foregoing. Then I fretted that we may have stopped short of the model we sought.roydop wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:33 pmSounds like you know what you're talking about. I have been waiting for someone to validate and confirm this for a long time. Even my good friend, who has a PhD (literally) in biology wouldn't confirm this for me. Maybe because I laid out the whole wacky theory at once and she didn't want to give me a starting point.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:51 pmYeah, you are on track, I will create a thread on this. All evolution is: "variation" which occurs through all linearly observed phenomena where in progressing past there origins (ie the number line in this case) and inherent "multiplicity" occurs.roydop wrote: ↑Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:04 pm If one were to produce the simplest model of the process of evolution, what would that be?
Would it not be the number system?
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Each progressive number arises from the "base" provided by the previous numbers, just as the emergence of a new species arises from the base of the source species, all the way back.
There is a tendency to overthink/overcomplicate this. Remember, the query is: What is the simplest model of the process of evolution?
I need this confirmed, as a large part of my theory is based on the premise that 1-9 could be interpreted as a model of evolution. Even better if it were to be proved that it is the simplest model possible of the process of evolution. I intuit it is. One that could be still interpreted by a certain level of sentience as relating to evolution.