The biggest questions ever asked ... answered.

[SB_UK]

Stephen Hawkings + Richard Dawkins + Roger Penrose + Ed Witten + David Hilbert + Nils Bohr + David Bohm +

Richard Feynmann +

Dalai Lama +

Cartman from South Park

(in the upcoming movie which features Roger Penrose as lead
The Oxford skyline, viewed from South Park

and like every rooting tooting fruiting body -
because it all
all -> context == everything

fits together in 1 neat little package with nothing inside and 3,4 and 13 written on the outside

- just like the Holy Grail -
which encoded its message within the structure of the shape of the average olde worlde metal challice thingy with spingelly spangelly jewels stuck on the side -

- a geometric array of minerals which might lend their shape to an image of an artist's impression of a conical E8
- viewed side on

-<- an artist's big picture in on everything.

[~boots~]

Originally Posted by SB_UK

nonADD (thought process bearer) t-shirts for sale

I'm with $tupid
.
.

yeah...funnily..I feel that way a lot....*why* do people think that I'm stupid? I know I'm not *the* most eloquent person (new word today) in the world..but just because I seem to be perpetually confused, I'm not stupid...

[~boots~]

[quote=SB_UK;527409]The biggest questions ever asked


---1---
What is reality? By Roger Penrose
Can we be sure that the world we experience is not just a figment of our imaginations? yes..our imagination doesn't physically hurt...but reality does..like..broken bones etc..I can *imagine* a broken leg...and still walk..but in reality..*snap* that bone and see what happens..we're here..we're NOT imagining that ..
(that's actually a question I used to ask myself a LOT when I was in my *smoking* days)---2---
What is life? By Robert Hazen
If we encountered alien life, chances are we wouldn't recognise it - not even if it were here on Earth true
---3---
Do we have free will? By Patricia Churchland
yes..but we have learnt how and when to use it..if we did have pure free will the world would be even worse---4---
Is the universe deterministic? By Vlatko Vedral
However you look at it, the answer seems to be "maybe" ?
---5---
What is consciousness? By Paul Broks
How does the brain, with its diverse distributed functions, come to arrive at a unified sense of identity? it doesn't...it never will...we can't all be the same..or we wouldn't be fascinated by others..I mean..I love to watch people who can sing, and dance...but if EVERYONE could sing and dance..it wouldn't be so interesting...(if that's what that question meant )
---6---
Will we ever have a theory of everything? NO...God I hope not...what would all the people *searching for the answers* do ?? we need something to look foward to
---7---
What happens after you die? By Mary Roach
you go to Heaven..or Hell...HELL being some big black hole ..all alone you never ever get out of.....*shiver*
---8---
What comes after humans?
more humans..slightly better evolved..

They were the immediate thoughts I had

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by SB_UK

New Scientist even ran an article called "The end of physics".

physics is a representation of mechanism

Originally Posted by perceptive Doors

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

... ... there is only 1 mechanism - however - the mechanism delivers the mystery which we seek as built-into the single simple mechanism -
it's simply a formulation which consigns Einstein into the dummies of scientific history - for his attack on Bohr and friends -
- for Einstein's statement that 'God does not play dice'

... ... by virtue of this one mechanism -
- we can have one simple idea which fuels our dreams - instead of curtailing them with notion of predictability.

- like - so how boring'd it be
- if we were to find that the equation meant that we could predict every darned thing that'd ever happen.

The beauty of complexity - is that orthogonal space on orthogonal space - we maintain and increase complexity - without capacity to actually 'know' by 'proof' - any of it
- datsa' model -
a single beautiful equation
-> gives it up for a ->
a couple of pretty pictures

-> as the 'end' of physics -
where pretty may be taken to mean
- the infusion of hope and meaning back into a lost people.

Dreaming is mandated by the pretty picture -
freedom is encouraged
- the 'anything goes' principle of imagination within mind - is given permission to 'imagine away' - without constraint -
and happiness is defined as the abstract though processes of freeing the individual from

'tyranny of mind' (Thomas Jefferson)

Thomas Jefferson would not have been proud of what was to happen to his vision

freedom from tyranny of mind exerted by those who would worship fal$e god$
- upon others -
was what it was supposed to have been about

people who were 'better' from a moral perspective - and thus unable to fight on either mental or physical sublayer -
- became victims - as tyranny of mind - actually grew instead of ended -
- its power from its invisibility

like hidden self-appointed monarchs at the altar of the federal bank -
- who'd have been toppled
long ago
if they weren't such weak pathetic limp little creatures who steal from their hideaways.

people who were 'better' from a moral perspective - and thus unable to fight on either mental or physical sublayer -
until (however) - the 'mental layer' could fight on its terms -
a logically unbreakable argument.

logic will always shine through in a people who are defined by their logical structure - by their mind.
Without introduction of 'good' or 'bad' -
neural structures which deliver logic to the behaviour of an internal 'us'
- as internal character playing an 'us' within an internal theatre of conscious awareness
R'us ->

in the best tradition of science (including Occam's razor, Bayesian methods and parsimony) - the simplest and most explanatory model -
wins

and of course
Occam's razor, Bayesian methods and parsimony are merely the mind creating names (as the mind became more aware of itself) -
of the techniques which it itself was using
(under the hood) -
- to operate in and of itself.

The alignment between these ideas and the pattern of evolution of software architectures (described extensively here) -
fits this picture -
in which we appear to be entering an age of distributed, VM and wireless software architectures -

implying

distributed model of mind
VM (virtualization) - minds within minds - kinda' accurately defined others on one's internal theatre of consciousness
and mobile wireless software architectures - running around like a Tammy with the inner sense of peace which comes with synergizing one's internal dopaminergic circuit with the planet (via the reson dance with Schumann) -
- and reducing her and our destruction of the planet
- by recycling

responsibility - cannot be thrust -
must be taken -

NOT
a burden

the humour - this is the only path to happiness.

irony (here) is as heavy as iron -
about turn - truly a lost people -
walking in the wrong direction.

We are all (potentially) the same on the defining level of man -
- the mind -
- we can all attain happiness given $freedom$ of capacity to develop our minds -

- it's all good

but there's a legacy de$ire which need be killed before the party begins.

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by _

I'll throw my best friend into a black hole if this idea is wrong,

--Friendless (in Cambridge)

-*-

Tourist guide
(Cambridge, Cambs, UK)

p.eversions:
*do not befriend the locals unless one dares brave a physicist's eversions

heck - you too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by perceptive Doors
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

:-)

" Jimmy 'no friends'
meet
_ 'no friends' "

' I never thought of singing a song as I pushed the guy into a black hole -
much respect
J 'no friends' '

' respect accepted gracefully _ 'no friends' '

-*-

_ pronounced 'errr???'

[Matt S.]

SB_UK and Tracy

the limit does not exist

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by _

like hidden self-appointed monarchs at the altar of the federal bank -
- who'd have been toppled
long ago
if they weren't such weak pathetic limp little creatures who steal from their hideaways.

but there's a legacy de$ire which need be killed before the party begins.

The Queen and the soldier
Suzanne Vega

A soldier came knocking upon the queen's door

'I am not fighting for you any more'

The queen knew she'd seen his face someplace before
and so allowed him inside.

'I've watched your palace up here on the hill
And I've wondered who's the woman for whom we all kill
But I am leaving tomorrow and you can do what you will
Only first I am asking you why.'

'Tell me how hungry are you?
How weak you must feel?
As you are living here alone, and you are never revealed
But I won't march again on your battlefield'

And he took her to the window to see

where the sun it was gold,
though the sky, it was gray

And she wanted more than she ever could say
But she knew how it frightened her and she turned away
And would not look at his face again.

And he said,
'I want to live as an honest man
To get all I deserve and to give all I can
And to love a young woman who I don't understand
... ... ... Your highness

- your ways are very strange.'

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by mspen1018

_ and Tracy
Quote: the limit does not exist

eversion makes this true -
-> there is nothing to prevent the eversion out from the confines of the limit which currently defines the outer bounds of our Universe

- pushing the envelope is not a problem.

It's just another 'u1nity'
- and :-)
although some time off (I guess) - we can evert ourselves ever on and uppawards - 'to infinity and beyond'
as Buzz Lightyear'd state with erudite tug upon his goatee.

Originally Posted by Maori Boy or Bruce Willis (I forget which :-) )

The Universe has walls for scalin'
- ain't nuttin' gonna' keep us down.
-paraphrase-

Cartoon image of some flat fish sucking up everything into its lungs
- and then turning inside out and simultaneously adopting a more rotund appearance -
with the sound effect
'schlooooooooP'
- therein begins life again within the belly of the big fish - which becomes ever rounder from energy from the other place - since the place previously - is within.

input outside -> fish -> output outside
->-
input outside -> fi(->output inside)sh
->-
input outside -> fi(->output inside)sh
->-
input outside -> fi(->output inside)sh
->-
input outside ->fi(->output inside)sh

-*-

the fish becomes the outer envelope of the Universe within - and at some point - it too may be everted into an evolving
?cat? -
:-)

Imagining the fish (image) being pumped with air (like a tyre) -
- as it supports evolution within (and growth)-
-and-
- of the fish as Stephen Hawking's nutshell -
(from the image above)

if ever you knew an old woman who swallowed a shoe -
now would be a good time to mention that she'd better
check it for the presence of any organisms -
which'd at some point evolve out from within her -
and simply
turn
her world inside out.

:-)

disorienting -
in exactly the manner that Jimmy 'no-friends' final friend experienced his last moments of 'real' coherent thought fall out of grasp.

[SB_UK]

added

~
contained within
~

Originally Posted by Revz

So basicly (dumbing it down a little for me) that means the universe is this:
[<-[->[<-[->[u]<-]->]<-]->]
~
I think so -
that kinda' thing.
~
Meaning the universe is infinite which means that all possibilities are possible and do happen within the same area...
~
I think it's safer to explain away everything we know to be true first -
:-)
I think any notion of infinite in that sense - has to follow the definition of infinity -
- which isn't as previously defined.
The previous definition of infinity as a really big blahblahblah!
:-)
doesn't hold.

Tammy - me add 823 - holds the answer
8 (old infinity) -> redefined under notion of -> 3
3 or T3rinity.
~
On some planet that looks just like ours and have humans just like ours and a sun just like ours and some one who looks just like me i could be...
Hitler?
A power ranger?
not ADD?
Have 8 workable arms?
and not only that but its not that it could be.. its that it has already happened/is happening or will eventually happen considering the meaning of infinite would change the equation for the likly hood of something happening from (using a quarter as an example; heads) 1/2=.5 chance and changes that to; 1/2=1 sense all possibilities are infinite and that is one of many and WILL happen..
but that makes no sense...
~
again - as above - if we explain away everything that we know to be true under this idea -
then ideas like those don't actually seem to matter.
What do I mean?
They seem kinda' interesting possibilities to muse upon -
based around the current scientific perspective on reality -
- however given a tighter definition of reality - the dreams change their nature -
- to - just as fantastic -
- but (and this is going to seem a little odd) -
more realistic equally fantastic thoughts -
though only realistic as a function of this change in model or mind - of 1 model explaining away reality.

Everything you've mentioned could hold in the reality of 3-4-13
- but the constraint of a model - shapes the dreams (remembering dreams are functions of man) - makes them more credible - though - perhaps even more fantastic given unconstrained mind (the previous state).

Again - then - from another perspective.
We have those kinda' thoughts to drive mind.
However abstract thoughts gain in their utility to us edpendent on the amount of stimularion which they can drive.
If we restructure our minds - and become able to gain more stimulation elsewhere - then we will.

There's nothing Universal about our actual minds - there are no thoughts which we must think - there's just a reward in thinking abstract thoughts - and so the more abstract -
- the more stimulating - the more we will think them.

The fact that we may not have solved the questions of a previous mind - helps to expose the 'artificial' nature of our mind -
- or rather the relative nature of our emergent property -
- which only can have relative absolutes -
- as I guess we all believed -
- though rather feared (previously) - fearing a general breakdown in society with an acceptance of the idea that a Universal 'right' and 'wrong' did not exist.

It does - effectively - but absolutely
absolutely does not exist
:-)
~
hmmmm how do you explain that one?
actually it makes total sense.... sort of.. help! haha
~
just as above I guess :-)
~
hmmmm... i wonder
many years from now
*math test*
Bobby J.
2+2=22
Teacher: wrong
Bobby: NO! see ( -> 3-d -> 4-d -> 13-d -> )n means everything is possible so all answers are correct eventually. Give me an A.
~
infinity -
- is recharacterized - and so infinity works with a 'finite' backbone.
So - imagine a 10 MegaPixel digital image of a circle
- it can be a convincing circle when printed -
- but zoom in
- and the very nature of the pixel defines the continuous nature of the circle in that image -
- as an illusion.
~

Originally Posted by Tracy H.

The biggest questions ever asked
---1---
What is reality? By Roger Penrose
Can we be sure that the world we experience is not just a figment of our imaginations? yes..our imagination doesn't physically hurt...but reality does..like..broken bones etc..I can *imagine* a broken leg...and still walk..but in reality..*snap* that bone and see what happens..we're here..we're NOT imagining that ..
(that's actually a question I used to ask myself a LOT when I was in my *smoking* days)
~
a figment of our imagination can create pain as a sub-figment of our imagination.
we need one assumption -
'assuming an external reality exists'

We need look no further than Neo before his awakening -
- the important point was that Neo need evolve to see through 'the Matrix'
(that feeling that things weren't quite right -
- is a statement by the directors of the film -
- of that sensation which they felt)

or rather that the Matrix was a perspective in on the process of

moden man -> evolving -> postmodern man (ADDer)

the sensation which the directors were feeling - and felt the explore - by employing their artistic expression -

- art crystallizes whispers.
~
---2---
What is life? By Robert Hazen
If we encountered alien life, chances are we wouldn't recognise it - not even if it were here on Earth true
~
aliens -
as mentioned in the reply to Revz - just don't capture the imagination in the same way as previously.
The notion that the Universe might be slurped into one's own head (mind) - as mentioned -> MSPen
- makes an exploration of 'virtual' reality -
- far more appealing (and real :-) )
~
---3---
Do we have free will? By Patricia Churchland
yes..but we have learnt how and when to use it..if we did have pure free will the world would be even worse
~
choice - 1 of 2 - is the fundamental component of reality - which is why we see the 'fork'
in branches of real trees
and as representations of logic - the ontology - the DAG (di-acyclic graph) - knowledge representation - logical or virtual structures which match the structure of knowledge in our own heads (minds) -
- they must do
- because they make sense.
~
---4---
Is the universe deterministic? By Vlatko Vedral
However you look at it, the answer seems to be "maybe" ?
~
:-)
~
---5---
What is consciousness? By Paul Broks
How does the brain, with its diverse distributed functions, come to arrive at a unified sense of identity? it doesn't...it never will...we can't all be the same..or we wouldn't be fascinated by others..I mean..I love to watch people who can sing, and dance...but if EVERYONE could sing and dance..it wouldn't be so interesting...(if that's what that question meant )
~
that's not 1 mind which shlurps us all in -
but each individual mind having the idea that it represents a single physical form -
the u1nity of the body - having a u1nity of mind - I think is what he's getting at.
~
---6---
Will we ever have a theory of everything? NO...God I hope not...what would all the people *searching for the answers* do ?? we need something to look foward to
~
What if the theory of everything was exactly the opposite of everything which you thought and felt when you wrote 'No' -
- in that case - the answer'd be
YES...God I hope so...
right?
~
---7---
What happens after you die? By Mary Roach
you go to Heaven..or Hell...HELL being some big black hole ..all alone you never ever get out of.....*shiver*
~
by bus?
- once again - this really doesn't bother me any more -
it's nice to know how to be happy -
here and now

Being happy - stops one worrying about death -
because worrying about death - is just one of those things we do - when we're not getting enough from life -
because it's just one of those ways that the brain plays tricks on the mind - to elicit neural stimulation.
We don't think about death - when we're maxxing out on life.
~
---8---
What comes after humans?
more humans..slightly better evolved..
~
exactly
~
They were the immediate thoughts I had

[SB_UK]

---32---
Can mathematicians prove the Riemann hypothesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
In 1900, Hilbert included the Riemann hypothesis in his famous list of 23 unsolved problems.When asked what he would do if awakened after having slept for five hundred years, Hilbert famously said his first question would be whether the Riemann hypothesis had been proven.

The Riemann Hypothesis is the only one of Hilbert's problems on the Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Problems.

where

Originally Posted by _

In 1900 the world-renowned mathematician David Hilbert presented twenty-three problems at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. These problems have inspired mathematicians throughout the last century.

and where

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert

David Hilbert (January 23, 1862 – February 14, 1943) was a German mathematician, recognized as one of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
He invented or developed a broad range of fundamental ideas, in invariant theory, the axiomatization of geometry, and with the notion of Hilbert space,one of the foundations of functional analysis.

highlighting added

Originally Posted by super brainiac (oh so not!)

... because NOTHING is particularly difficult from perspective mind.
Mind is a game - which we play on evolutionary terms.

(1862 + 1943)/2 + 100 ~ 2000
(1862 + 1943)/2 + 500 ~ 2400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
and
image ~source~



and from ADDF ~s~



little red ringing hoods........little red riemann hides

the nature of Hilbert's metalelevel being the logical equivalent of the geometric drawstring in little red riding hood's
:-) hood
-or-
the geometrization which interested Hilbert - was the virtual geometric dual to the logical construct of the
Hilbert metalevel

Hilbert was deeply interested in the Riemann Hypothesis - because it presents as the 'real' dual -
the geometric dual which defines his construct - the metalevel.

Duality -
there is no light without dark.

Next - mathematics/physics are constrained by the mind of the observer.

To be expected in bilateria -
brain of two hemispheres -
everted opposites -
polar constructs -

we observe the nature of Hilbert's obsession - as the basis to mind - that is - that the mind represents a construct which is based around a duality between the

real ->
and
<- virtual (imaginary)

just like complex represents a 'real' and 'imaginary' component.

real (the geometry of an external touchable object) -> <- imaginary (the model of that object within our mind)

slight irony in that the geometry of an external touchable object is still an 'internal construct' -
however the important distinction - is that the
real
world - here of real (geometry) -
actually only refers to the need for an external reality - in order to supply an input feed - which is in duality with its logical equivalent.

What does that mean?

The duality described above represents the external world (eyes, ears) -> feeding a stream of information which duals wth its internal equivalent -

and so we need an external world in order for that duality -
- though that duality gave way to the purely internal duality which defines the speciation event which gave rise to man

What does that mean?

It means that the mind of man is a Universe unto itself - and :-)

What does that mean?

It means that we are Lord of the Rings and have an effective Universe within our own heads called the mind which can support its own evolutionary development -
just like evolution occurs within the Universe -
we are examples of that

So - one last time - What does all of that actually mean?

Simply -
in order for an organism with a brain to work - we need a duality between one signal and another.

Before mind of man - the two duals within this duality represented a stream of information from the external world - and its dual from within.
An external world was required - since the stream of information which was used to dual with its other -
- came from information flow - from out there -
outside of the confines of our 'self'.

However - with development of mind - it is possible for the duality -
the two signals to both (although thy were both internal previously) - to actually be 'created' -
both of them -
- from within.

And so as such - we place no stipulation - at this point on there actually being an external reality -
- though before the idea is conveyed that this means that we can simply fall into our own heads -

it is necessary to state that this is an evolutionary character and as mentioned extensively -
- we live through all stages of our evolution from 'start' at << - 9 months to death -

- and that the stages of development of mind - which are described here - are sub-speciation and speciation events - which
-yes- lead to our selves no longer requiring an external world -

however the stages previously - DO require an external world -
- which is to say - that a baby - takes time before their mind delivers first effective communication -

- and our babies will never get to experience the freedom from the strings of an external reality - until each step from birth to that stage are mounted - each step represents a learning or building of mind -
- and the steps associate with the construction of a particular geometric structure of mind - which permits us

eventually

autonomy from external reality.

-*-

Our species from Plato through Descartes to Sartre has had an overwhelming interest in the existence of external reality.

why bother?
unless we were beginning to see through the fac5ade of an external reality - into and not its lack of actually being 'realness' :-)

but instead our mind's conditional nature on its existence - and its declaration that its own evolution (synonymous with our happiness) - was only ever going to be realised when we cut our dependency on an external reality.

It is real important to note that this is not a statement about anything about external reality -
- merely about us seeing through the relationship between our brain and mind -
as in effect the duality between geometry and logic
(previously described as RRReality -> rrreality) here

- and into a world - in which we can be free - of

rrreality -> <- rrreality as our new duality - the trick which our brain (mortal coil) - requires in order to ensure our own continuation.

It's merely an 'electrical' thing; how else could motivation work?
Why should we want something - unless it represented an energetic equivalent of something good -
kinda' like letting oneself fall (like Alice) - instead of fighting an inexorable force (and instead - enjoying the ride - or the journey - which
certainly
is not going to stop now).

All of this stuff is correct - and I can see why now.

Originally Posted by Stabile

speciation of modern man represented the descent into an internal milieu - an internal model = an internal theatre of consciousness.
~paraphrase~

Stabile is correct.

Originally Posted by from above

'fighting an inexorable force'

represents clinging onto the physical world of physical possessions and physical wealth -
when that was the world of a lower animal.

We do feel pleasure performing on the animal level (phy$ical po$$ession$) - however
- by definition of the ::

asymptote
complexity
the Riemann hypothesis
and
the Hilbert metalevel

-> the 'happiness' of lower evolutionary levels - is a log fold down on the happiness attainable on higher levels -

why?
-> axiomatic

we're actually defining all of the mathematical operators using this same idea (namely
exponential (hence log)
- (hence +)
multiplication (hence division)
complexity (hence i, imaginary,real)
and
u1nits (0,1 and hence 2,3,4 ~etc~ )

not to mention dimensionality
the logical operators
every aspect of geometry
:-)
and everything else :-) to cut a long story short

We do feel pleasure performing on the animal level (phy$ical po$$ession$) - however ... ...

it doesn't make us feel so great - which is why really rich people give away their money to charity -
- to make themselves feel better.

Sure - it's about them - and them succeeding on the wrong level -
- actually making themselves unhappy - as a consequence -
- since lower evolutionary characters are banned if they interfere with higher evolutionary characters.

The pursuit of physical possessions - and life in the physical world - prevents development of a rich internal world -
because 'stuff' gets in the way -
- we make ourselves feel bad - because no matter how much 'stuff' one has - the evolution of first man with mind - carried with it only one stipulation - to
stop all of that nonsense.

This is a really quite impressive pattern -
the mind has been generalized and everything which we ever needed to know - is answered by virtue of one simple idea.

Originally Posted by final score

Stabile 1
Everything else 0

sadly though - everything else does not exist; there is no component of any question which has ever been thought - which cannot be solved using the evolutionary pattern of

(3-4-13)n

it is god

:-)

and she likes vegetarian sausages in banana morphology and doughnuts with rings for dinner (and icing and not granulated sugar
- which just gets everywhere).

(that last paragraph isn't strictly true).

:-)

[SB_UK]

~*~
replacement post for #40

PLEASE CAN YOU KEEP THIS POST AND NOT THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS POST?

- Hiya -
Please can this post be used to replace post # 40 ?
sorry (nearly an hour spent editing one post)

'what are you some kinda' freak?' -> _
'aha!'
:-)
~*~

---32---
Can mathematicians prove the Riemann hypothesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
In 1900, Hilbert included the Riemann hypothesis in his famous list of 23 unsolved problems.When asked what he would do if awakened after having slept for five hundred years, Hilbert famously said his first question would be whether the Riemann hypothesis had been proven.

The Riemann Hypothesis is the only one of Hilbert's problems on the Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Problems.

where

Originally Posted by _

In 1900 the world-renowned mathematician David Hilbert presented twenty-three problems at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris. These problems have inspired mathematicians throughout the last century.

and where

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert

David Hilbert (January 23, 1862 – February 14, 1943) was a German mathematician, recognized as one of the most influential and universal mathematicians of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
He invented or developed a broad range of fundamental ideas, in invariant theory, the axiomatization of geometry, and with the notion of Hilbert space,one of the foundations of functional analysis.

highlighting added

Originally Posted by super brainiac (oh so not!)

... because NOTHING is particularly difficult from perspective mind.
Mind is a game - which we play on evolutionary terms.

(1862 + 1943)/2 + 100 ~ 2000
(1862 + 1943)/2 + 500 ~ 2400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
and
image ~source~



and from ADDF ~s~



little red ringing hoods........little red riemann hides

The nature of Hilbert's metalevel being the logical equivalent of the geometric drawstring in little red riding hood's
:-) hood
-or-
the geometri'zation which interested Hilbert
- was the {{{real geometric dual}}}-> to the <-{{{virtual logical construct of the Hilbert metalevel}}}

Hilbert was deeply interested in the Riemann Hypothesis - because it presents as the 'real' dual -
the geometric dual which defines his construct
- the metalevel.
since within a Duality -
there is no light without dark.

Next
- mathematics/physics are constrained by the mind of the observer.
To be expected in bilateria -
brain of two hemispheres -
which're everted opposites -
polar constructs - just like in (everything) - including bar magnet spiral galaxies (which are jolly pretty)

- we observe the nature of Hilbert's obsession with the Riemann hypothesis
- as the basis to mind
- ~that is~ -
that the mind represents a construct which is based around a duality between the
{{{real}}} ->
and
<- {{{virtual (imaginary)}}}

... just like complex comprise in 1 dimension
- a 'real' and 'imaginary' component.

{{{real (the geometry of an external touchable object)}}} -> <- {{{imaginary (the model of that object within our mind)}}}

slight irony in that the geometry of an external touchable object (supposed real) is still an 'internal construct' -
---aside---
(- this gives us the all important basis to mind - as it's the 'self' of organisms without a mind - simply forming an internal duality -
it's not complex and is highly intuitive)
---aside ends---
*however( the important distinction - is that the
real
world - here of {{{real (geometry)}}} -
actually only refers to the need for an external reality
- in order to supply an input feed - which is in duality with its logical equivalent.

What does that mean?

The duality described above represents the external world (input stream through the {eyes, ears})
-> feeding a stream of information which duals with its internal equivalent -

... ... and so we need an external world (stuff to come in through our eyes, ears, touch ceptors) in order for that duality -
- though that duality gave way to the purely internal duality which defines the speciation event which gave rise to man.

What does that mean?

It means that the mind of man is a Universe unto itself

- and
:-)
What does that mean?

It means that we are Lord of the Rings and have an effective Universe within our own heads called the mind which can support its own evolutionary development -
- just like evolution occurs within the Universe -
we are examples of a container vessel - just like the outer reaches of the Universe represent a container on our 'vessel'.

So - one last time
- What does all of this (actually) mean?

Simply -
- in order for an organism with a brain to work - we need a duality between one signal and another.
Imagine wheel 1 turning wheel 2 - which then turns wheel 1 some more - which then goes onto turn wheel 2 - which
:-) surprise surprise turns wheel 1 a little further
(and so it continues ... ... ...)

Before mind of man
- the two duals within this duality represented a stream of information from the external world - and its dual from within.
An external world was required - since the stream of information which was used to dual with its other -
- came from information flow
- ~from out there~ -
from outside of the confines of our 'self' (which is encoded by distributed architecture within the structure of our brain).

However - with development of mind
- it is possible for the duality -
the two signals to both (although thy were both internal previously) - to actually be 'created' -
both of them -
- from within.

And so as such - we place no stipulation - at this point on there actually being an external reality -
but only *at this point*
- however before the impression is given that this means that we can simply fall into our own imploding heads (which is silly) -

- it is necessary to state that this is an evolutionary character and as mentioned extensively -
- we live through all stages of our evolution from 'start' at
< - 9 months
to death -

- and that the stages of development of mind
- which are described here -
... are (sub-speciation and speciation events)
- which
-yes-
->lead-> to our selves no longer requiring an external world -
***however***
the stages previously - DO require an external world -
- which is to say -
- that a baby - takes time before his or her mind delivers first effective communication -
- and our babies will never get to experience the freedom from the strings of an external reality
- until each step from birth to the stage which is currently being described are mounted (the sequence must be conducted in order)

- each step in the sequence represents a learning or building of mind
- and intuitively so can this be seen to be a sequence
how can anybody without language understand any of this?

Universal rule of sequence applies here -
- and can be used to squash any suggestion that we could travel back in time - too many sequences have been altered post the event which the individual seeks to travel back to ... ...
... ... though (importantly) we can 'kid' ourselves into the notion that we have travelled back in time -
computer games and films do just that -
- and the notion that building our imagination strengthens our internal world (evolutionarily mandated) -
- makes the point that this is enough to make us happy -

the actual dream of time travel comes from the mind wanting to imagine something nice, juicy, abstract and satisfying -
- however these ideas replace those ideas with more fulfilling ideas -
where all ideas can now see to be a game of mind - to fire as much as is possible -
- for energetic reasons -
and where the pattern of lovely abstract thoughts - differs as we build our minds.

I no longer dream of being a footballer -
why?
because it doesn't satisfy - to the same extent as other jaunts of the imagination.

***however***
the stages previously -
DO require an external world -
- which is to say -
- that a baby - takes time before his or her mind delivers first effective communication -
- and our babies will never get to experience the freedom from the strings of an external reality
- until each step from birth to the stage which is currently being described are mounted (the sequence must be conducted in order)
- and the steps associate with the construction of a particular geometric structure of mind - which permits us

eventually

an autonomy from external reality.

(the sci-fi possibilities from this observation - gives us essential clue into our pattern of evolution into the future)

-*-

Our species from Plato through Descartes to Sartre has had an overwhelming interest in the existence of external reality.

Does external reality exist?

why bother pondering this seemingly unanswerable question?
(which can be answered - it seems :-)
ooopsy!)
... unless we were beginning to see through the fac5ade of an external reality
- into
and *not* its lack of actual 'realness' :-)

to re-iterate - we're not actually (though it seems as though we are) - actually examining the
'realness' of 'external reality' - here -
~that is~
whether it exists

but instead our mind's conditional nature on its existence
- and its (the mind's) declaration that its own evolution
(synonymous with our happiness (by definition))
- was only ever going to be realised when we cut our dependency on an external reality.

It is real important to note that this is not a statement about anything about external reality -
- merely about us seeing through the relationship between our brain and mind -
- as
- in effect -

the duality between geometry and logic
(previously described here as {{{RRReality}}}-> <-{{{rrreality}}} ) here

- and into a world -
- in which we can be free -

a new world of
{{{rrreality}}} -> <- {{{rrreality}}}
as our new duality
(where anything is possible
- a field of dreams
- dare to dream
- ADDer day dream believers)

->- the trick which our brain (mortal coil) - requires in order to ensure our own continuation.
... ... ... evolution has seized on the internal model - as our path for continued evolutionary ascension.

It's merely an 'electrical' thing though; how else could motivation work?

Why should we want to do {something,anything} -?-
... ... unless it represented an energetic equivalent of something good -
kinda' like letting oneself fall (like Alice) - instead of fighting an inexorable force
(and enjoying the ride - or the journey - which
certainly
is not going to stop now).

All of this stuff is correct - and I can now see why :

Originally Posted by Stabile

speciation of modern man represented the descent into an internal milieu - an internal model = an internal theatre of consciousness.
~paraphrase~

by process of physics as defined by the only process which is needed -
- unification is achieved by - the geometry of

(3->4->13d)n

Stabile is correct.

Originally Posted by from above

'fighting an inexorable force'

represents clinging onto the physical world of physical possessions and physical wealth -
-> when that was the world of a lower animal.

We do feel pleasure performing on the animal level (phy$ical po$$ession$) - however
- by definition of the :
asymptote
complexity
the Riemann hypothesis
and
the Hilbert metalevel

-> the 'happiness' of lower evolutionary levels - is a log-fold down on the happiness attainable on higher levels -

why?
-> axiomatic

we're actually defining all of the mathematical operators using this same idea :
exponential (hence log)
- (hence +)
multiplication (hence division)
complexity (hence i, imaginary,real)
and
u1nits (0,1 and hence 2,3,4 ~etc~ )

not to mention :
dimensionality
logical operators
geometry
:-)
(which were just mentioned)

... ... and everything else :-) to cut a loOoOoOng story short

We do feel pleasure performing on the animal level (phy$ical po$$ession$) - however ... ...

it doesn't make us feel so great - which is why really rich people give away their money to charity -
- to make themselves
feel better.

Sure - it's about them
- and them succeeding on the wrong level -
- actually making themselves unhappy
- as a consequence -
- since lower evolutionary characters are banned if they interfere with higher evolutionary characters.

Once again -
by simple fact that it messes up the one geometric process.

The pursuit of physical possessions and life in the physical world -
of defining physical hierarchies - for man on man -
prevents development of a rich internal world -
because physical 'stuff' (belongings) gets in the way -

- we make ourselves feel bad - because no matter how much 'stuff' one has - we become not just tethered (but more tethered) to pain
- the evolution of first man with mind - carried with it only one stipulation - to

stop all of that non$en$e.

This is a really quite an impressive pattern
(3-4-13)n
- the mind has been generalized and everything which we ever needed to know
- is answered by virtue of one simple idea.

Originally Posted by final score

Stabile 1
Everything else 0

there is nothing else within 'Everything else'
- an 'everything else' does not exist;
there is no component of any question which has ever been thought - which cannot be solved using the evolutionary pattern of

(3-4-13)n

it is god

:-)

and she likes vegetarian sausages in banana morphology and doughnuts with rings for dinner (and icing and not granulated sugar
- which just gets everywhere).

(that last paragraph isn't strictly true).

~*~
replacement post for #40

PLEASE CAN YOU KEEP THIS POST AND NOT THE IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS POST ?
~*~

[~boots~]

Originally Posted by mspen1018

SB_UK and Tracy

you missed us really..

Originally Posted by Tracy H.
The biggest questions ever asked
---1---
What is reality? By Roger Penrose
Can we be sure that the world we experience is not just a figment of our imaginations? yes..our imagination doesn't physically hurt...but reality does..like..broken bones etc..I can *imagine* a broken leg...and still walk..but in reality..*snap* that bone and see what happens..we're here..we're NOT imagining that ..
(that's actually a question I used to ask myself a LOT when I was in my *smoking* days)
~
a figment of our imagination can create pain as a sub-figment of our imagination.
we need one assumption -
'assuming an external reality exists'

We need look no further than Neo before his awakening -
- the important point was that Neo need evolve to see through 'the Matrix'
(that feeling that things weren't quite right -
- is a statement by the directors of the film -
- of that sensation which they felt)

or rather that the Matrix was a perspective in on the process of

moden man -> evolving -> postmodern man (ADDer)

the sensation which the directors were feeling - and felt the explore - by employing their artistic expression -

- art crystallizes whispers...
~
---2---
What is life? By Robert Hazen
If we encountered alien life, chances are we wouldn't recognise it - not even if it were here on Earth true
~
aliens -
as mentioned in the reply to Revz - just don't capture the imagination in the same way as previously.
The notion that the Universe might be slurped into one's own head (mind) - as mentioned -> MSPen
- makes an exploration of 'virtual' reality -
- far more appealing (and real :-) )
~ *what is *virtualy reality* ??? isn't that a big fat oxymoron...
---3---
Do we have free will? By Patricia Churchland
yes..but we have learnt how and when to use it..if we did have pure free will the world would be even worse
~
choice - 1 of 2 - is the fundamental component of reality - which is why we see the 'fork'
in branches of real trees
and as representations of logic - the ontology - the DAG (di-acyclic graph) - knowledge representation - logical or virtual structures which match the structure of knowledge in our own heads (minds) -
- they must do
- because they make sense.
~
---4---
Is the universe deterministic? By Vlatko Vedral
However you look at it, the answer seems to be "maybe" ?
~
:-)..yep..I had NO idea about that
~
---5---
What is consciousness? By Paul Broks
How does the brain, with its diverse distributed functions, come to arrive at a unified sense of identity? it doesn't...it never will...we can't all be the same..or we wouldn't be fascinated by others..I mean..I love to watch people who can sing, and dance...but if EVERYONE could sing and dance..it wouldn't be so interesting...(if that's what that question meant )
~
that's not 1 mind which shlurps us all in -
but each individual mind having the idea that it represents a single physical form -
the u1nity of the body - having a u1nity of mind - I think is what he's getting at. I wonder if he can dance
~
---6---
Will we ever have a theory of everything? NO...God I hope not...what would all the people *searching for the answers* do ?? we need something to look foward to
~
What if the theory of everything was exactly the opposite of everything which you thought and felt when you wrote 'No' -
- in that case - the answer'd be
YES...God I hope so...
right?...that's like saying "I wonder what it'd be like to be thin, if I wasn't so fat"
~
---7---
What happens after you die? By Mary Roach
you go to Heaven..or Hell...HELL being some big black hole ..all alone you never ever get out of.....*shiver*
~
by bus? no...buses are too heavy to float
- once again - this really doesn't bother me any more -
it's nice to know how to be happy -
here and now

Being happy - stops one worrying about death -
because worrying about death - is just one of those things we do - when we're not getting enough from life - we also worry about death when we are not unhappy...like Mr T...had allergic reaction on the weekend..and I thought about life after death..while I was dragging him into emergency..
because it's just one of those ways that the brain plays tricks on the mind - to elicit neural stimulation.
We don't think about death - when we're maxxing out on life. true
~
---8---
What comes after humans?
more humans..slightly better evolved..
~
exactly..yeah..with NO WISDOM TEETH..and better *plumbing* for the ladies...much much much better plumbing..like a tap..on the hip...can someone genetically modify woman for that??
~
They were the immediate thoughts I had

it is god

:-)

and she likes vegetarian sausages in banana morphology and doughnuts with rings for dinner (and icing and not granulated sugar
- which just gets everywhere).

nope..sorry..God is a bloke...I just have that *gut* feeling on that

[quote][/Originally Posted by Maori Boy or Bruce Willis (I forget which :-) ) QUOTE] I wonder how MB is...

[~boots~]

Originally Posted by mspen1018

SB_UK and Tracy


Quote:

what does that mean BTW Matt??

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by Tracy H.

nope..sorry..God is a bloke...I just have that *gut* feeling on that

-1-
-yes- :-)
god is a bloke
though it's a moot point.

-2-
Mother Earth places woman as 'mother' of everything we know -
however mother cannot exist without father -
- since the duality is essential for generating 'child'.

-3-
father generalizes to convex and
mother to concave

-4-
the mother (female) - sign is the sign of the church
o+
because the concave is the parent structure to our 'reality' - so the place where everything real starts

-5-
man in this context of 'god' merely represents the convex entity in an orthogonal space - which gives rise to
real - female
(in the sense - as above)

-6-
this idea is formalized as the male brahman in Hinduism.
In Hinduism the female trimurti is placed on a par with the male brahman -
and
Mother Durga duals with brahman (male)
I believe that this is a metaphor for

brahman (male) (plasma) (unstructured) (orthogonal to our reality)
-> in duality with <-
Mother Durga (electron - electricity)

- neither one without the other -
whereupon we are given -
by
(3->4->13)n

< convex >
{{{Brahman (similar but not Brahma) (outside of our 'space')}}}
-> the first duality <-
{{{Shakti (often used as a synonym but not Durga)}}}
( concave )

< convex >
{{{Brahma -> Vishnu -> Shiva}}}
-> the second duality set <-
{{{Durga -> Lakshmi -> Saraswati}}}
( concave )

-7-
This idea explains why physicists like Bohm and Oppenheimer have edged towards Hinduism.

-8-
The idea of creation -> continuation -> destruction
*is* the description of the recursive generation of a shape with
(3d geometry -> 4d geometry -> 13d geometry)n

-9-
The idea demonstrates why (and noting that mental layer mind of man need not be in a physical man -
that the existence of (generally)
physical man with mind of mental man
and
physical woman with mind of mental woman

generally tends towards man - delivering more detail to our shared world - and on the mental level -
an understanding of the world
whereas ... that woman tends towards keeping things real -

though (yet again) - it must be mentioned
that physical layer gender need not match with its gender equivalent - on a higher level -
- and that higher level dualities are more important to the organism than lower level dualities -
explaining how same gender relationships are normal -
- and not 'abnormal' or 'bad' as some like to believe -
- though it should be noted that mental male and female must exist in same sex relationships for them to work

{{{physical (and mental) male}}} -> and <- {{{physical male (mental female)}}}
or
{{{physical (and mental) female}}} -> <- {{{physical female (mental male)}}} dualities

and hence Will (from Will and Grace) and the funny one who hung around with the strange lady who didn't like to do crosswords.

-10-
Our society is characterized by an intellectual snobbery which sees 'thinky' stuff as more important than its dual -
this is not correct -
- as with all duals - the two component dualities of a dual are of equal worth
- as echoed by -
[quote=Tracy H.;529452]
You are great with some stuff..and I am great with other stuff..and you'll find it as hard to find it as easy as I do, like I'll find it hard to find it as easy as you

[quote]

Bearing child is of some great importance to a Universal process which defines 'child structure'
as the consequence of evolutionary mechanism -
- which (of course) - if not seen previously :-)

is all there is
- the one 'mechanism' which is required to give us all of this and explain every question which we needed asking in that world pre- this one idea.

-11-
So -yes-
:-)
god is a bloke
though it's a moot point.

There is no reflected glory - since we're talking about one of two geometries (really - only) -
of which convex (man) - is the notional 'god' - defined as the first geometric structure or parent which is unknowable -
and concave (woman) - is the 'wife' - to the guy who's never around - though

oh my ! ! !

geeze !

oh my oh my oh my !

this is amazing !!!

This story would be expressed as follows:

-*-

A mother who gives birth to a son
-
A husband to the mother who is not knowable - since he exists in an orthogonal space
-
The idea then of a 'virgin birth'

-*-

This story has been told before.

It is the story of physics - reality -
it is true -
- man - I understand
man oh! man oh! man

things will never be the same

I have so much electricity shooting through me at the moment that I'm going to fall over

... ... that last bit is sooo important.
So very important.

:-)

thanks Tracy
- I understand.

-*-

The religions which exist are about to wipe aside the damaging systems - financial - parochial
- which sought to place 'man' as 'god' -

from the bitter priests who made us feel worse than them - and who attained status, power and wealth -
- through abuse of good people

to the greedy bankers who thought that they could control good people by shaping economic systems to their own benefit - and who attained status, power and wealth -
- through abuse of good people

in collusion with our current and insidious legal systems
(the chief culprit in my eyes of the problems in our society - since their power was $imply $old to the highest corporate bidder) - legal systems lay claim to justice == defining 'right' and 'wrong' == morality
and of course prizing the power which comes with defining 'right' and 'wrong' for their own
status, power and wealth - and maintaining their worth by preventing individuals from closing themselves off to scrutiny.
Almost every discipline can be studied and learnt using freely available information - except for any position within 'law' - which maintains its power by obfuscation -
- and maintaining itself in power - by making itself ONLY transparent to its nepotistically appointed lapdogs.

to the bureaucrats - who paid homage to the ways of legal systems - by making themselves indispensable - by forcing us to have their signature before we could legitimately breathe
except (of course) for a co$t
and so themselves attaining status, power and wealth -
- through abuse of good people

there's a pattern forming here.

to the bad teachers who taught *not* for the benefit of their students - but for the pleasant feelings (so they thought) - of power over those who were made to listen to their words

and of course my own favourite
the new priests, teachers
- the scientists -
parochial proof-loving scientists who ensured that reality could not be understood by hopelessly confusing it -
most evident in medical research -
where status, power and wealth were granted to those who worked on the fashionable disease in the better University -
- the lecture tour -
treated like a VIP -
good grief!
- medical research rejected science and turned to hypothesis generation - and away from testing hypotheses as basis to their work
- the fastest route to Hell -
E8 defines a world of possibilities - where a single line defines what is happening -
- what then happened will be shown to be and particularly in medical research -
- upon disease
-> of complete rubbish (most evident in the entire field of psychological disease -
where we have been exposed to the most utter
c-r-a-p)
- the scientist who stated that no decision could be made
- without their say so -
and then (worse still) - the scientists - who believed that they could play god.

-*-

The pattern

man playing god
- and every discipline playing god systematically undermining 'true gods' in order to cut themselves in on the $action$.

[~boots~]

oh my ! ! !

geeze !

oh my oh my oh my !

this is amazing !!!

boing boing
that's my boy ;-)