Quotes and bits

[VLS]

It is  not how much we win . . . . . . . . . it is how LITTLE we  lose .

Nathan Detroit
HAPPY WINNINGS!!!

Nathe.... WELCOME!

[VLS]

"Roulette is basically the same movie all the time with different actors (numbers). Concentrate on identifying the scene and you can predict the dialogs."

- Victor

[GARNabby]

"If you take all numbers in existence and then only even numbers that exist, which is bigger?
The first is bigger, although both are technically infinite."

Not true.

One may show that there're as many points, while not trying to define what a point is here, on a long versus a short line... by bringing those lines parallel, and sweeping across both with a third line turning through a suitable point below.  (For each pt on the outer, longer segment, there's a corresponding point on the shorter.)

But when it comes to the types of numbers, as fractions or rationals versus real numbers... a mathematician named Cantor proved the latter are indeed more-numerous or more-densely packed, to the extent of being uncountable.

Furthermore, modern mathematicians now agree that there are also types or "levels of" infinity, itself... the reals have been defined as the 0th level of infinity.  No one really yet fully understands any of the higher levels of infinity, asfaras i'm aware... which are definitely required to begin to understand and explain the observable continuous processes of time and space, especially motion.

Whatever became of "Jeffrey" Cantor?  An old professor of my told us Cantor eventually went (hopelessly) insane... "Only a strong mind can hurt itself."




P.S. A link to some of Cantor's related work, link:://plus.maths.org/issue47/features/macgregor/2pdf/index.html/op.pdf .

[GARNabby]

Hey Victor,

All of that aside, which is bigger... infinity (without end), or everything (all the way to the end)?

[VLS]

GARNabby, I've chosen to answer that dangerous question via PM  

[GARNabby]

P.S.  My answer? I think that "the infinite" has more to do with science eg, physics and chemistry; whereas "the all" has more to do with (the wholeness of) the consciousness studying the sciences... can have an infinitely-partitioned thing, but not half a person.

Leaving a god/devil to be "the consciousness in things", both endless and/but ending.

[VLS]

P.S.  My answer? I think that "the infinite" has more to do with science eg, physics and chemistry; whereas "the all" has more to do with (the wholeness of) the consciousness studying the sciences... can have an infinitely-partitioned thing, but not half a person.

Leaving a god/devil to be "the consciousness in things", both endless and/but ending.

If String Theory is right, then we are ALL bits and parts of an entity which has particles in and out of this "slice" called universe and going to the multiverse... (i.e. what we see is never our "complete self", we are then just a possible state of the whole.

[GARNabby]

If String Theory is right, then we are ALL bits and parts of an entity which has particles in and out of this "slice" called universe and going to the multiverse... (i.e. what we see is never our "complete self", we are then just a possible state of the whole.

Even establishable theories, of which String Theory isn't one, can't lead to such a basic, almost child-like picture of things.  That requires some plain-old definitions for the basic operations of the mental and physical sorts... eg, including one for what infinity is, rather than more means to cancel it against itself (to try to "save" those theories from breaking down nicely on their own).

We need a theory of theories for that.  (Einstein, realized that the math must parallel the physics, and versa... but forgot to write himself, asfaras his own thinking, into the greater scheme of things.)

[VLS]

"If String Theory is right..."  

[VLS]

We need a theory of theories for that.  (Einstein, realized that the math must parallel the physics, and versa... but forgot to write himself, asfaras his own thinking, into the greater scheme of things.)

I know it may sound "cliché", but others have (tried) to pick where Einstein left in this "Theory of Everything", and -pardon me- some... make sense^*, INCLUDING String Theory.

(^*: Read make sense to me!)

[VLS]

Well, of course, for some people killing cats in rituals makes sense.

I do take for granted you know that making sense to someone doesn't necessarily means the theory is right/wrong.

Clarifying, "just in case" 

[GARNabby]

"If String Theory is right..."  

If that theory is correct, we would never know it... the energy-levels required to test anything to do with it are beyond anything capable.  (A few years ago, Hawking's boys thought they had it fitting in with some of his gravity-equations... but nothing more came of it.)

Anyway, that theory is a wave-theory... and just throwing away the particles, to me anyway, seems more than clumsy.  (Even though the vibrating and closed "strings" could mimic particles.)

I know it may sound "cliché", but others have (tried) to pick where Einstein left in this "Theory of Everything", and -pardon me- some... make sense^*, INCLUDING String Theory.

(^*: Read make sense to me!)

Einstein died in '55... physics has moved on, with even his own published works having been rewritten in different maths to simplifiy a lot of those concepts.

Along the way to that TOE (theory), it will become clear, and perhaps cruel... to note where all of its predecessors went wrong.

Well, of course, for some people killing cats in rituals makes sense.

I do take for granted you know that making sense to someone doesn't necessarily means the theory is right/wrong.

Clarifying, "just in case"  

Speaking of cats, here's the one from the early days of quantum physics, for they who aren't into such cats, at link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat .

And of making sense, Niels Bohr once said, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough."  (Some others of his, at link:://:.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/niels_bohr.html .)



P.S.  Do you know who Bohr said that too?  Gotta run, see you tomorrow, Victor.

[VLS]

Along the way to that TOE (theory), it will become clear, and perhaps cruel... to note where all of its predecessors went wrong.

Agreed!

P.S.  Do you know who Bohr said that too?  Gotta run, see you tomorrow, Victor.

I'm all ears!

[VLS]

What makes sense to me is that given the amount of variables our current universe required to "get right" for being at the current state we experience, it is more logical to find such astronomical amount of odds realized in large samples. We may be only one of those possible "evolving snapshots" in a very large stream of states, where these variables have enough "sample length" to be possible.

To me it is harder to think all the variables "started right" in one single attempt! (I don't want to get into the stand of some people who want to make the multiverse negate the existence of a creator, it is still true that you can't make something out of nothing. There MUST have to be something "prime").



Remember religions say "God knows it all", assuming it is true and assuming all the choices are realized into parallel realities/timelines/universes then God has full access to the multiverse and can see every option realized to its fullest extent. That's how it is possible for this conscious being to "know it all", because it all is realized in this multi-space and he has access to all these streams of data, named realities^*, very well being part of them all (God is everywhere). He must then by force have to be present at the same time in all of these universes, in the form of the basic matter for the "Building blocks" of each and all of these realities. The gluing component of all that is there, and living part on the creation itself; having matter, energy and consciousness, the sum of it all... being both the materials and the creation realized. "The Divine Particle" and all that it forms.



...As much as a single cell doesn't realize it is part of a larger organism (the body, with its own realized conscience) we may very well be part of something bigger and self-conscious with its own self identity and not realize it at all (that may be the "image and resemblance" part the religious always talk about, and not the anthropomorphic state)...

[VLS]

We don't know how much "ram memory" does the universe really has for "saving states", we don't know how many characteristics the same "object" in the universe may hold (think programming: inheritance of a set of traits, yet the prime object as a "class" is common to all, reusing the same properties -or in this case: the same particles).

...From getting to see the extension of our single universe and humbly acknowledging we only see that fraction we name the "known universe", if infinity fits a finite space (think how many decimals are there in a single centimeter of your ruler 0.0000[attachimg=1]1 to 0.999999[attachimg=1]...-to infinity-), we could easily be a "dot" in another larger universe, and still have everything proportional to us and our limited state of perception, in awe on how large the world is for us, enjoying the illusion of infinity, inside the confines of a larger, yet finite, "outer space".