AVJolorumAV

Hello. I have studied and read wide for years and have a good theory about the nature of dark energy, and recently because I found good use from ChatGPT to compliment only got the inspiration to post things for people to hopefully think different and have another perspective and description to further understand astrophysics and to higher definition. I put a rough set of some questions using a ChatGPT custom made PDF here for someone that would want to see themselves what we find for each topic. I am not a professional physicist and mathematician. I am completely cognizant of this as a post for modern science and in no way am trying to make religion the center, and will be strictly explaining to the field for science. I dont have my credentials anymore but am the identical user from a 6 year old theory. I wrote a thread a few years ago and while I share the same opinion of the dark energy until now, I've learned things and want to make a good thread to hopefully be built by scientists for a fleshed out theory. The description does revolve inspiration directly in Kabbalah but the reason I write the thread is that it is something astrophysics should find tangible in it's method. I am aware of the impending deadlock with science and with quantum science and standard models, being stuck with same concepts and no breakthrough and avenues. I write the thread because I believe it will give the direction to unblock modern deadlock. It's a general explanation with outline for possible means to see and validate components, so I'm offering an idea with aspects science can attempt finding. It's a base idea and quite core to Kabbalah and should be stated for the fundamental nature. The short description for dark energy is it being directly 'thought / memory' from living creatures and is the basis. In Kabbalah, creatures have heads and parallel with our astrological bubble to stars, where brain + thoughts and top is first. In Kabbalah right is first, in a different description, however the head and thought is primary to all behavior. The entire foundation is when creatures learn and grow it is having it's own effect in the world, and the more higher the thinking the closer to higher light and is reflected with stars. I want to offer some considerations in this thread, from examples of memory not being empirical science within brain to lacking accounting for civilization changes in different ways with data. I will offer all angles I believe I know and hope people will appreciate the thread and build on this. I with the help of ChatGPT gathered some examples and details to put together in a thread so I'll write then down in this thread now. 1. Memories are possibly in universe, not within brain and the gray matter. It's not been proven as fact our brains host memory. There are alternate experiments and research that indicates memory could be retained in our 'universe' as well, and our brains don't save memory like ram / synapse correlation. The teaching is that our brain is a kind of antenna where we receive our consciousness, meaning our thoughts are external in the source. Experiments (I'm quite certain that its predictive processing one) can show awareness of things in a brain scan before actually witnessing event, and knowing things which subsequent scan can validate which surprises the scientist since they can't comprehend the way they know. Panpsychism thinks all things inside universe has traces but Kabbalah is specific to creatures only. It does however help give perspective on other kinds of groups showing signs of cognitive life. It can help explain how a non brain gives parallels. There are some scientific theories our brain content is entangled and thought not matter, for example Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It's one of the most reputable theories for thought. There's already description of a bubble that is all cognitive thinking coined noosphere about our thoughts altogether. I avoid the idea of an all knowing version outside of God, and is too overboard and found in some belief systems that I disagree. There's no akashic record, but more a Jungian collective consciousness together using sychronicities only from big bang. There's examples using mainstream view our memories are contained within synapse, like NDE phenomenon and altered states of consciousness which goes to disagree fundamentally that its just the neurons around them. People can have brain damage or small brains yet function and perhaps efficiently as well! 2. Does a star have evidence of a field related or unique attribute of? In my theory stars bind to our thinking where the dark energy resides in higher dimension, and occurs just outside stars. Examples which show scientifically that it could have field I wrote down. I didn't want things which are outside the conversation too much in my view, for example Stellar Magnetic Cycles. Starquakes and Oscillations. Asteroseismology. Persistent Corona, unexplained heating, Heliosphere. Rhythm pattern I find probably the best one as Helioseismology, for listening with oscillations in the surface for 'memories' within nuclear events like flares and more. I think this is the best one because it's about a phenomena that acts independently to star composition. Energy survives outside the star and just outside with corona, and would mean this is probably the process and function bound to star which has the 'material' for creature's thoughts (not dark energy yet, which is deeper around and not related). I suppose stars directly themselves would be directly regarding thought for creatures, and the mechanism / processes / function. It's more us creatures. Dark energy is deeper and I'll go into the explanation. This is probably the best fit for star thought function. 3. Using modern technology and knowledge of the world, find direct evidence of our knowledge in cosmos 1:1. This is now where the dark energy can begin its definition in context of the early points. The base for the experiment to detect energy patterns is by correlating knowledge to the stars and finding the correlate. I believe our collective history known from dinosaurs and everything between would according to the accuracy of our records be detected. We have ice sheets which can help with recording events on Earth, but that's only on the planet. We have archeology to infer deeper history and archeology with knowledge itself, and have the material to apply to the cosmos for detection. Until today we scan for signs of life and alien messaging, and haven't ever done experiment to see if knowledge is detected even closer to earth. I propose we do such experiments. I believe using known knowledge a correlation will be determined and even if partial will surely be more than enough to advance science all-round. It is truly dependant on known knowledge. Here are examples of scans that can be performed with our knowledge. We can create a map of development of intelligent life and curve where things have heightened intelligence. We can make it proportional to properties of cultural evolving civilization to show the differences of wildness to herd cultures. We can take known recent historical events and milestones or human growth, and find the parallel. We can take up to the most recent of times where the whole world became smarter with books and law for culture system. I'm certain if we compile key information, and mapping like which stars were above certain areas and distances of the stars and measurements we are capable of, in all permutations a partial or higher match is there and exists now. I bring up Kabbalah because the concept for dark matter being bound with stars and seemingly an influence to aid and group energy is directly 'obvious' to studying higher knowledge and doing good thought processing as creatures. It's a concept where studying Torah helps everyone, and Kabbalah describes levels and dimension influences. I ought clarify that while we don't have scientific credence with Judaism the string theory and descriptions contained have a direct parallel to higher concepts found exclusively within the higher exposition in Kabbalah, and only with the texts in Judaism. The concept is the better cultural education, the higher effect with the cosmos. If creatures find value to educate and be smarter and have a smarter civilization, it will manifest and the stars will respond with it. I bring this up because it is a concept in Judaism anyhow and it appears one that is overlooked by science and descriptions of scientists efforts for looking for dark energy until recently. kabthteny.pdf

That is right regarding some systems that specifically have its own structure and to be aware beforehand that it subscribes as. Sure and nice idea to double check and triple check AI descriptions. Some stuff it just cooks by itself and it's ideal to have a proper table for explaining every component in the queries.

All is good :D I think also religion has its own ways. I'm interested in what a proper good math model achieves for use. I believe and hope we caught up throughout on relevant and important things and so from now we can more comfortably contribute with anything we think about as well. I've thought about the model overall and what's expected, and I have a good gist and also know it takes time. I'll need time for all steps and details for. About the post regarding groups I found the images. I believe it's to allow for group macros and so ought have real application when required, and don't have a problem fundamentally using a unique identification of elements. I have a thought about the sequence of PEMDAS / BODMAS and if one is considered authoritative and if we can even argue it. Thank you for the constructive mathematics link. Definitely helpful and goes with ChatGPT answers reassuring me the model seems to best fit the branch. It mentioned I would adapt the branch definitions for specific axioms that are needed so it becomes more it's specific refinement. The idea of defining number system where addition isn't consistent such as modular arithmetic with clocks is good idea and example for thought! Open for every kind. I'm slowly getting all the situations math expects, for example non-constructive existence and that being open ought have considerations for the applications. If there is more to add I'd be happy for reply because I'm unsure what to consider. You may know of more things to post in this thread. I can say that presuming a complete set of boundaries brings some interesting notions about what math really is. I've started with presuming the end :D I imagine it's as monkey-like as a calculator now and that the interesting aspect is the model descriptions. I'll continue working on the model and update when I find something appropriate.

There's another aspect I didn't write and worth mentioning. The above model should by its own boundary work together properly using the expectation humans have complex philosophy and imagination and that math is supposed to be used with humans demands.

Sounds to me like we agreed in the same group regarding what the computer for example is supposed to accomplish. Like Hilbert's program. I believe we agree we give strict axioms and boundaries which are slow and surely done. I want the thread to be continuing and with anyone's input as open and going with the thread. I don't intend at all to force the thread to be about what I'm adapting here. I want to explain the update below and probably what your answer contained may have some addition for the description. I think you will notice the reason. I want to show gratitude to @studiot and @KJW for all the contribution to make an amazing thread containing a lot of great things about foundations and core things in all round areas for math. I should also mention I've had some prior efforts and over the years continued reading and thinking, and recently I began using AI with ChatGPT, and need to give credit to it since I wouldn't have made this thread if it wasn't for it being. I started the thread with the model RCM, and some ideas to ensure 'true math' happens. It I believe was a comprehensive start for outlining and building on, with flexibility to expound like with all the help and perspective given. I want to continue in same spirit but believe in the past 2 days I have a clarity and one that will allow me to address it's core and update things within. I believe my clarity is regarding this: I realized when putting together my first 4 'core components' based on my basic (unifying) operation and activity that quantities are mandatory. I intuited and believe literally all math is done on quantites and exclusively. This is not anything else in equation as example, like on the '=' for example. I understood in the clarity this is literally a foundation in itself. I've reasoned that in a sense Cardinals are used and all other types with context get a kind of conversion based on structure and task. This idea maps well onto the RCM asking for measurable steps and numbers in the outlined axioms to be specific. The expectation for using quantities only is in alignment with using only things I'd want processed! I'm interested in a set of axioms, going top down from 0 to 1, to processing quantities and understanding this, to what would be involved and so on. On the road all important things will be accounted for like using only addition, the 5 sequences and 163/300 concept and the adding together of 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16..., how to make algebra fit and things people use for example using pi. I asked can I use intuition and intention to go through and thoroughly produce this. I know that on the road it would consider all concepts, boundaries, definitions and components needed for it, and what happens at the components. I then realized the clarity I'm mentioning and is the reason for the post. I asked will intuition and intent alone serve reaching it's end. I know math is using a system with boundaries / axioms self contained to operate. I asked is intention enough. I then realized the clarity. It's that the 'point' as well function of math is 'do not need to' at the foundation. This is the point and what must be considered throughout top down. By using this we guarantee purity / real math. At every component, we require context for what the math will do. This gave me the clarity regarding human problems that arise and that we as humans can generally include things we philosophically believe or find profound as mandatory or the part absolutely needed. We avoid forcing with the awareness. The whole point using 'do not need to' is 'to maintain and not stray within context for component'. 'Unifying', 'do not need to' with its pair 'math only on quantities alone', and 'to maintain and not stray within context for component' is literally all needed or required for the maths all round. I believe if intention is genuine surely one can do the model to the end as foundational and goes together with the point. With this, I've had a better understanding about what I've wanted from the thread in principle. I will update the name of the model now to NCM: Necessary Constructive Math and think of the sequence with amazing ideas from within the thread already put forward. In short, I believe 'do not need to (no forcing)' together with 'math only on the quantities alone' is the fundamental outlined expectation to follow. We help ensure that within context we get and enforce the set of component and axiom, guaranteeing for example something not a quantity and within reason how to compensate (like when considering component using like algebra), and to adhere to a genuine calculating. If we don't intend to be genuine to the end 'we will do calculations and get answer however it will be half way to true end boundary calculations surely'.

I completely agreed with the history and your description of math growing in your own lifetime. I'm keeping an open mind to what people will need math for when we are in an advanced place where science is much stronger and people are smarter as an example of what it is for humans. I agree that the history and steps is good and we have done many modern things. World math history is amazing! I had a clarity earlier thinking of the core concepts and want to write it down in another post later because I'm unable right now. It's quite comprehensive I imagine, so want to ensure it's put down in correct way. I recall pi was referred, and believe I'm open to the description in the Bible for all math in a spiritual definition likely. We currently have gematria patterns in letters and paragraph sequences today, and it could be deeper. I'm open that would humans have an advanced knowledge about world fields perhaps the Bible could make better use.

I can't give a good answer regarding maths purpose because I believe there isn't enough knowledge yet regarding our need and mental expectations. I can provide loose spiritual association like gematria and numerology, noting how there are 365 days in year and Kabbalah mentions 365 as well as 248 for describing the body. We see things like set number for maturation in creatures and seasons / task necessity. Will we prefer mental engaging with math like horoscope things and sorting concepts as we think how humans would in a world after we understand definite boundaries or will we not mentally be engaging with math and it's simply architectural /engineering alone. My input is not quite definitive. I think core concepts would help with building up on previous discussions, and am still thinking about the necessary expectation. I wrote that I wanted a mechanical minimum to work and then build it from what we determine is mandatory and essential at the basics. I'm thinking about the essentials needed. I mention the stage for first glancing, knowing its relevant to have idea that the question is genuine and reasonable for example, and while the Von Neumann computer may be too basic to do complicated scanning, common programs to calculate generally include checking for legal functions. For a program I don't know if it's too difficult if we simply get the program to do for example sanity checking, but my concern is about the core essential part of what the calculation requires and then build it from it. You're correct about needing enough to use with computers and we could do what is done today using many operations for fast ease of interacting.

I apologize for doing a reply that was out of sequence to your message and will reply in this. I wanted to have an opinion of your understanding of a sequence of core concepts for your topic of most basic operation and activity in (philosophical) mathematics and based on the answer see how I determine what maths is for human beings in society as aspect. I read the part about science and maths proof, and it is helpful about confirming what proof is, and thought that math proofs don't require much regarding difficulty of structure, and it's how it is using words that keep the proof held. I haven't got a good answer for the purpose of math at the time. I unfortunately do not think we could give a core place for math in all society since there's a lot to still discover and better comprehend about society and what we expect mentally. There's a lot to consider in world implications that need math and your answer is great for current knowledge and the capabilities humans use and experiment until this time. I'm confirming that math can be done using minimal things and that it can function in general. I'm using the example of Von Neumann as well as minimal instructions since this would be closer to that basic necessary thing. I understand in principle all math more or less is slow and sure. I'm trying to confirm the basic necessities for the philosophy of mathematics with example, and to have confirmation with it. Maybe there's another example more simplistic that can illustrate the core. I see there are extra states which I understand is more electronic / hardware oriented and as a cache used to determine electrical decisions.

Ok. So I'm thinking of what core concepts include. Do you have any explanation about your original topic? "What, in your opinion, is the most basic operation or activity in Mathematics?" I think the best first description for me is to explain what happens during the 'unifying'. It's as said unifying the quantities to the answer as end. The first step is the quantities are to be processed alone. It's not 'the answer'. All processing is with the quantities and is the way operations occur. If we acknowledge it's quantities being worked, the rest follows. Then after it's about reaching goal the unifying. It's the structure of all events. There's probably a bit more about that, but we can then say steps revolve this core axiom. I'd say the next step is about what math actually expects and think of Von Neumann machine with minimal operation. I ask myself if math is to do with exponential changes, and if it is then the main thing math accomplishes is just growing and the only operation allowed adding. If adding is the only operation then all math would revolve around the operation, and we can comfortably continue with making anything in future just it. To subtract we can use the twos compliment, multiply repeated addition and conditional logic maybe branching using just 1 value and comparing. If this is what is needed then we can think about 3rd step. I would believe it's relating initial observed query and accounting all expected things. It's like thinking of what it is expected by first impression and like just even before, like initial vision. Estimating is the word I propose although maybe it's even strong. Step 4 is attempting to take operations and formally propose sequence of calculating. This is so far a series of steps as a basic premise. I'm thinking of the remaining. Do you agree this is what generally would be manifesting?

I think these are generally simple and about my English trying to write too complex. I want to ask something at the end. I tried to write a lot in a concentrated message. "Logic is possible with algebra as core." is saying that only because of modern algebra it became adopted into a field. It existed prior as words but without the mathematical expressions from modern times relatively it wasn't officially considered as math. It's that math became bigger when we got extra systems. "Cardinals represent literally any number as fundamentally and is the main way any arithmetic happens" is that any possible number is encapsulated using Cardinal numbers and as a type specifically it is used in arithmetic. "You do realise that there are physical quantities in the material world that cannot be represented by a single number ?" That's good for reminding that multiple together make the answer and in sections. True and so arithmetic has to happen in many steps per section. ChatGPT. They require sets of numbers, functions, or geometric structures — and that’s why physical mathematics often deals with vectors, tensors, and fields rather than just scalars. What do you consider as the point of math and what it accomplishes in the world as a whole process?

First I would like to acknowledge that it appears that you give me validation and recognition that I'm pretty alright! I will respect this. I'm trying to be true about what math does overall and thorough and think unifying is quite descriptive for the goal of what humans can do with math. I will address that now, and know that it's not too hard and needs to be specific so that no boundary is broke. I know that we can do what is possible in math alone before turning to science and other ways which compliment human beings needs and expectations for maths. Can categories be reduced to ven diagram with circles such as 2D / 3D, arithmetic, and shapes. I won't mention certain things with formulas like in voltage, temperature, and such from real world because I think the principle written should match. I ask if we can arguably and reasonably assume when taking labels or geometry and logic (such as syllogisms) and angles and topology and patterns like 'char' we transform or encode information representative to quantity 'bool / integer' equivalent data like used with Cardinal numbers. Cardinals represent literally any number as fundamentally and is the main way any arithmetic happens. We know of the counting spectrum and I could also assume they are converted equally. I ask if representing a quantity happens when performing arithmetic in broad common majority math. I am asking because it's part of my question of semantic structures. We can look at the tally and say it's like a++, incrementing and with a strike every 5th to be easy to read, and a bigger one at 10 etc. It's like an abacus with colored items on rows. A computer must take all 0 and 1s and do things with it, and we can look at pseudocode steps of what happens. When Rene Descartes gave graph model we learned a simple way to represent 2D / 3D with new spectrum that can be fit and easily processed. People though about computer code for calculators using hydraulic analog computers and using steam, alluding that the cpu design is quite specific for just the ability of arithmetic / logic. We got 3D visuals in simulators using graph principle (alpha colouring for cleared layer) as majority. Are we able to do calculus without a graph, painstakingly with pseudocode or 0 and 1 asm? I completely believe we ought describe 4 types of numbers, and difference with counting by hand and tally with arithmetic method. It's important to distinguish because we should know math structure to correctly take items we can perform math with. I believe you understand my circumstances regarding math measuring quantity fundamentally as a way to perform things. I completely accept we need to distinguish things and for structure.

Ok so I thought that the description of quantities that process for end result is fine. After though when looking at substitution and thinking again I came up with a word. It's fitting my description when using Quantity units (Cardinals) specifically, and is the more or less description of the process of getting an answer. The word is 'unifying' and describes the quantities becoming unified with the answer as an end of query. I was looking at the previous post thinking if there's a section we should discuss, unless you want to respond to my word and then proceed?

I have a word '..ing' for the process and waiting since it's better to sequence. :s I tried double posting before and thought it will autojoin. I'm sorry for extra here. Maybe mod can fix

So to help explain, there's the list of all positive (and negative) numbers, and the 4 types here. Cardinal numbers. Quantity of a and b to infinity. Ordinal numbers. It's sequence and identification strictly in context of positions. Nominal numbers. It's also to identify and is strictly about one thing only, so it can be given to entirely. Counting numbers. This is all positive numbers as individual placeholder information and is treated as individual things. I remember I also know the tallying later became known using a tool, the abacus. I'll wait for a reply to both posts (@KJW thank you). I wrote how math to me is quantity (seems just Cardinal) calculating and for purpose of receiving the answer. It's that math is for human interpretation for goal and to solve important question.

Sure I am interested in your general line so yes to the 4 types. I am aware of the recurring symbol with decimal numbers and also ellipsis right. It's shorthand and works ok. Your mentioning that where a definite start/finish is without like ... on each side is it's end of which I imagine normally is just on each side at most, however end to me is a word meaning final perhaps. It's an expression however so it's ok. On a side observation do we have examples of something without a start? Curious if math has found anything. The most basic I say means it's related to calculating quantity and giving us an answer fundamentally. It's in the simple version using symbols or numbers and something which processes the information as demanded. I imagine math doesn't go much outside from it. A computer can illustrate all operations as 0 and 1 being moved, expanded, shortened and summarized, when demanded. There is a universe within we are discovering to form the boundary that it legitimately does and is the elegant art. I should say that for math proofs sure they are done using only math, and peers similarly to science. I didn't quite talk of the math version, and should say I know of some of the methods math uses for few basic things. For example Claim: If you add two even numbers, the result is also even. --- Proof (using algebra): 1. Let the first even number be 2a, where a is any integer. 2. Let the second even number be 2b, where b is any integer. 3. Add them: 2a + 2b = 2(a + b)