0340

.

if you see a comment that you want my opinion on, give me a link to that comment what do you not understand? HYPOTHETICAL | English meaning -...hypothetical1. imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true: 2. imagined or…by the way you might want to read up on what an 'object' is

value of the information is determined by the observer

in other words you are saying that a physical or mathematical theory will be recognised by the scientific community as a "scientific theory" without there being evidence that the theory is correct are you serious? yes of course you can wait if you have a specific question you can ask it too i totally agree with you on that.

before you only talked about rational thinking and i told you about algorithm of rational thinking now you've added "human inspiration" to the rational thinking algorithm such a system is also programmed with self-learning expert systems or what is called ai basic algorithm for examples you describe is not difficult to describe

"One further question, following swansont's comment about holes. Is a shadow real ?" i can't see this comment give me a link to it or quote it

clock is a synchroniser clocks became widespread because they synchronised the activities of the masses of factory workers in the industrial era with the work schedule

In Judaism there is an image of Adam Kadmon reflected in the earth's ocean and disintegrated into many images of sorts you can interpret it any way you want

is the formula 'i am that' or 'i am I' or 'i am' this formula is found in various teachings the meaning is that everything is one how far your consciousness can afford to conform to this formula will determine your conscious view of what you are asking about

what language is transmitter --> code --> receiver if transmitter and receiver use the same code encoding and decoding interpreters the transmitted code is a language . you're certainly not familiar with other fields of knowledge besides physics shall we continue this line of dialogue? .. you are talking about a hypothetical object that is objectified by a hypothetical system of objects - where do these hypothetical objects exist and in the form of what?

rational thinking is algorithmic logical thinking algorithmic logical thinking is mathematically programmable yes that's exactly what I'm talking about paradox is that if i say create a 'theory of everything' that accurately describes everything science will not recognise that theory even if it is 100% correct you're arguing with yourself

meaning аny theoretical model is recognised by the 'scientific' community as a 'scientific' model only after the 'scientific' correctness of this model is proved by means of methods of calculation and description of the objects of this calculation which have the status of 'scientific' it is an algorithm legitimising knowledge into legitimate 'scientific' knowledge - it's standard procedure - what's not clear to you?

source of my judgement is myself . physics if you assume that objects pre-exist before the observer it's wrong an object-observer pre-exists before the process of observation in the process of observation such an object-observer can only perceive those objects that he himself contextually objectifies simply put there are no things without an object-observer 'thing' in physics cannot be 'not real' otherwise it is not science .. maths maths is a language for describing logical operations with images of objects in this language things don't exist at all - what are you talking about?

paradox of the 'theory of everything' suppose i have created a 'theory of everything' by its definition this 'theory of everything' includes an algorithm for a legitimate descriptive language of models which is the basis for creating these theory in the scientific community as a result my 'theory of everything' would not be considered legitimate in the scientific community even if it were 100% correct

mathematics is a language when a mathematical unit has a precise definition and when all mathematical variables have a strict and precise definition of their properties for all observers of the system in all other cases, maths is nonsense that has no relation to reality simple example how does what is accepted by physicists as the theoretical unit of time and the unit of distance agree with each other in reality? it doesn't however mathematics calculates the speed of an object as 'miles per hour' does the speed of an object exist as a physical object of reality? does not exist mathematical calculation of an object's speed can be useful when the object belongs to a system that has an exact definition of all objects in the system for observers of the objects in the system objects in a system may have different definitions for different observers of the system therefore an accurate mathematical description of a system may look like chaos to some observers of that system to other observers of that system weed is cooler than maths

. space-time is not a physical object space-time does not exist in the physical sense and is only used as a conceptual model for mathematical calculations. einstein never claimed that space-time exists everything is relative .. the neutrino is also a conceptual model. neutrino doesn't exist in reality. for the process of ascillation a particle must have mass scientists don't know how what they call neutrino changes its properties so they multiplied images of neutrinos adding to each new image the missing properties for calculations it makes no sense to divide physical reality into massless particles it is done only for mathematical calculations and confirmation of physical theories