studiot

I appreciate you may have put appreciable work into producing this, particularly as it does not seem to be unacceptable AI pap but your own work, But I am sorry to tell you that it falls way short of the scientific bar. Particularly introducing religious concepts designed to control peasants a millennium and more ago.

Well I think that is poor definition of absolute. Absolute things may be limited or restricted. For example Pi is definitely less than 4 . But it does mean not referred to any other value. But thank you for your thoughts, they just need some tightening up. I find this very common with 'philosophy'. People sometimes use terms which are too general or all embracing.

Well you have repeated several times that But you have also invoked set theory with non empty disjoint subsets, but have offered no reason why this universe cannot hold an infinity of facts. Many facts are compound or complex so do not fit into this requirement. My King Charles thoughts (quickly off the top of my head) are an example of such. There is a difference between unbounded and finite. The domain of the sine function is infinite yet the function itself is bounded. Similarly you need to take care of the difference between an identity and an equality.

Clever words indeed, but perhaps a chink ? Hopefully you are not claiming that Charles Francis Douglas Stewart is not the same identical person as the King of England ?

This equation suggests that all systems — from atomic structures to human consciousness — are constantly trading energy and information. This could explain how matter evolves into life, and how consciousness emerges from this trade. I see you have done some engineering so perhaps are familiar with the (chemical) engineer's version of the First Law. Input = Output plus Accumulation Perhaps it would be a good idea if you were to explain exactly what you understand energy and information to be and then to describe exactly what information trading is since you appear to be mathematically 'double counting' Please take heed of the Moderator's gentle advice and do not ask your AI, but use your own words exclusively.

It would certainly be more interesting to most members than the AI twaddle posted so far. How many care abour conditions far a way and long ago except George Lucas ?

So will all this stuff predict the location and severity of the next major earthquake ?

But properties are exactly descriptions of how objects can partake in causal relationships! We derive the properties from an object by the ways it can causally interact with other objects. (Oh, and I did not say 'material objects'). What is an object ? No it is true I thought you were referring to material objects, but if you are not: Take a piece of graph paper. Draw a 1x 1 square on it. Absolutely nothing else. That (in my opinion) is a non material object as it is a gedanken experiment so no material graph paper will actually be defaced during the course of the experiment. Now what causal or other relationships does that square possess ?

This is really ducking the issue. I used the term holographic (as invented by someone or other with nothing better to do than dream up fancy terminology) to cover all possibilities where the observer and observed are part of the same system. great stuff +1 Why only objects ? Surely (material) objects have properties. And much causality and emergence comes from these properties. And most properties are non material. Not sure how this would be applicable to physical objects I was thinking of Kuracharski's explanation of BT and how maths is adapting to accomodate this. Proof - Professor Adam Kucharski 2025 p 48-49. "How to make two copies of an infinite line of apples." The point about this is that we are not sure any longer about underlying theory such as dimension. If you can make another line of apples, you can make an infinite number of lines. This really impinges on Eise's points 2 and 3. and emergence. We are starting to realise that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts as well as less than or equal to ie not as in the triangle inequaltiy (which underlies QM) .

Yo Kitty

Max Planck. Wasn't one of those 'fundamental constants' named after him ? +1

A worthwhile discussion and introduction to it. +1 That does not mean I agree with it all. How does the anthropic principle play with a holographic universe where both the observers (us) and the observed are simply in tyhe mind of a computer or organism ? But does it ? Some bits do, more or less Even the Canadians might blanch at over minus 200oC below. Yet Nasa thinks thre is a good possibility of life on Pluto. I agree Emergence ? Banach-Tarski paradox? Sounds a bit like complacent 19th cent Physics and the age of the Earth etc etc. We are always discovering and testing new things, new ideas. eg The iridium boundary ( A triumph of hardline Physics over Geology) So yeah, let the discussion begin.

OK thanks for the pretty pink lnes which appear to have no significance, in relation to your incorrect understanding to phase diagrams and the critical points of water. How do you account for the triple point of water ? Let's discuss some actual physics because this is not the complete behaviour of water. This is further complicated by the Chemistry when the water is not pure. Which amplifies my point that Physics and Biology are not the only sciences.

No offence meant but Go see an optician. 😁 I say this because when you go to the opticians for eye tests, some of the tests are based on flashsng lights ever shorter and faster until you can no longer catch them. As I am not an optician I don't know the timings, so ask one.

Also look here for some worked examples Biology LibreTexts26.3: Distance Based Methods

@CharonY Perhaps a moderator would help you access/combine your old account as I can see your old posts under the user 'popcornfrenzy' ? With regards to this question here is a free nifty visual network tool that allows you to draw and calculate the distance (weighted or unweighted) matrix amongst other things. It has an instructional video. https://graphonline.top/en/ Have fun drawing your tree and calculating your distances.

All the more reason to take note of the caveat in the thread title. My purpose was to warn others, what they do after that is their affair.

We already have plenty of regulations. They just need to be enforced. Remember the imaginative way Al Capone was finally taken down ? Tax dodging. False Acounting.

Is that poor excuse justification for lack of regulation ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced5wvn48q5o This one contains examples where it did work as well as did not work although the amount of backchecking required make the AI not worth it.

First of all, thank you for trying to reply. Unfortunately you may have missed moderator swansont's helpful short post about replying. In line with your love of AI, I have enhanced the important line If you are having trouble with this please ask Otherwise place your quote and then press return a couple of times to leave the quote box and add your own stuff. As you can see there are plenty of folks here with an interest in discussing your ideas . But they will soon give up if you make it too dificult for them. When you have more experience of the fomat here we can help you further with the clever stuff like extracting a bit from a misplaced quote box and putting it in a different sort of quote or picking out quotes from different pages. We all try to help each other here. Really it is the other way round. You will not arrive at a TOE without maths. I see no diagram. You need to post discussion material here. This is a very important part of the rules.

Do you remember the 'Yanks always late sketch " ?

Only a bit ? So compared to us they are pretty sane then. 😁

There is an interesting tale of Kurt Godel's application for US citizenship in Adam Kucharski's 2025 book 'Proof'. When told that the US constitution could/would not allow a mad dictator he apparantly said that he could proove otherwise, noting that he had already shown the Prussian and Napoleonic codes to be logically flawed.

Well Gavin, you discover new things in the most suprising places. It has taken me some while to untangle your underlying thoughts from all the tens of pages of AI responses in your article. Let me just say two things about that. Firstly docx documents are not acceptable on this website. Asking an AI to answer technical 'questions' is fraught with dangers as the AI is worse than unintelligent, so their output is often technically incorrrect or inappropriate. Of course, sometimes it is OK, but the trouble is the user doesn't know when or how to distinguish so can be seriously misled. AI's are presently unreliable and their output is not acceptable here. Having said all that +1 for leading me to learn about 'arche' Thank you. Buried in all that hype you have a germ of a good Idea that I agree with, along with lots of other mathematicians (did you think there is only Physics and Biology ?). Mathematicians have been busy these last few decades reshaping maths to widen ideas rooted on 19th century Physics to acomodate many other disciplines. One example is my thread here on metrics and measurement and another concerns biological applications of this widening. For some a 'TOE' is like a red rag to a bull. In my opinion it is the ultimate exposition of the human desire to classify and categorise, as is the notion of any sort of arche. But your inter-relationships model is being accomodated within the body of current maths at fundamental level. I look forward to your response with interest. On Pluto H2O is a rock which forms molten lava (ie liquid water) through plate tectonics. The NASA film of the last transmissions of the New Horizons fly by is fascinating. Nasa believe that Pluto could be a good candidate for extra terrestrial biogenesis, and NH even discovered complex molecules in its spectral analyses.