- #1
Xelthen
- 4
- 0
So I created a theory that was evidently garbage and so I have disposed of it. Problem solved.
Last edited:
No. And it has nothing to do with breaking the laws of physics. The reason for all the blank stares is that you present unsupported disconnected claims that don't add up to anything coherent so it's like reading about a dream you had. Throw it away completely.Xelthen said:Does this make sense?
CaptainQuasar said:Well, in trying to be helpful, I went on to write this other comment before I saw your most recent post:
But I would say that there's probably really nothing wrong with the sort of things you're thinking about, it's got to do with your communication skills. In the course of working out an intelligible way to articulate an idea you often recognize flaws or self-contradictions in the idea that have to be ironed out before it could even be communicated, much less evaluated. This is why some of the very earliest philosophers were primarily concerned with grammar and language, like Śākaṭāyana and Pāṇini in India, the Stoics, Apollonius Dyscolus, and Dionysius Thrax in the Greek world, and the Míngjiā / School of Names 名家 in China - even the human race as a whole had to get a command of language down before it could get to seriously talking about other things.
―
But I think you're still having problems with that, or perhaps just basic logic.
"Since this information expresses both spatial and time dimensions, it has to be a source from outside of the space-time manifold."
Why? It sounds cool, but what would happen if information expressing both space and time dimensions came from within the space-time manifold (again, whatever that is... this does not resemble the normal meaning of "manifold" in math and science, which is just a concept, like a specific category of really complex shapes.) Would the universe explode?
You say this: "So let's say this "thing" that is transmitting information from outside of space and time is mapped T: X → X." T is just any one-to-one relationship of the members of a set. It could be nothing more than an identity function. But next you say "Then we know that it came to be from within itself" which does not follow at all nor relate to a one-to-one function being possible on a set.
Which is possible with any set whatsoever, anyways, existent or otherwise, not just a "thing that is outside time and space".
Further, "So now we know that what determines what is real is real because it is mapped as such inside itself" makes no sense. It's real because it says it's real, and we really ought to trust it? Things don't just prove themselves into existence.
I think that a good practice for you, before trying to explain to others, would be to consider anything like this you come up with and see if you can use it to "prove" the existence of other things - you may find that, if it were valid, the same series of steps could prove the existence of anything whatsoever.
Xelthen said:If information expressed space and time in space and time wouldn't that be a contradiction? That's like instead of processing of information going from the hard drive to the monitor it just processes in the monitor. There had to be something else that processed it before hand so that it could be projected on the screen. So yes - I did make the rule up but I was making the rule up based on what I thought was a logical inference.
Xelthen said:Endomorphisms are functions from a set S into itself. If it is a function of itself why would it not be in itself?
Xelthen said:All that I was trying to say is that what configures reality is the only to determine its own identity.
Xelthen said:How did time come to be? Well certainly time must have come from somewhere. How did anyone propose anything about time if they didn't know where it came from? After all, time doesn't just prove itself into existence. Yet time did prove itself into existence. Just as many of the physical forces proved themselves into existence.
Xelthen said:How is this not valid? This table is constructed particles: of atoms. It is constructed of electrons and neutrons. It is constructed of possibly even smaller particles such as strings. How is are all of these things and there interworkings expressed? Through information. How is this information expressed? It has to be expressed through something.
Xelthen said:While I find your tips encouraging, I also find it insulting that you imply that I am illogical and that I came up with us out of thin air. I did not come up with this out of thin air.
Those are very profound cosmological assertions to make, that time and various physical forces are uncaused and did not develop from some other thing. Not impossible, but again things that you can't just use as the assumptions of arguments and expect everyone to automatically accept.
"Things have to be expressed through something." Again, a rule you're making up out of thin air. Putting aside even that the semantic meaning of that is vague without many supporting definitions.
you have advanced things like tautologies and circular reasoning so you're definitely capable of being illogical
People like out of whack above (and me, for that matter, on most days) won't look twice at an idea if it presents tautologies and other things like that.
Disposing of a theory means to reject, abandon, or discard it as a potential explanation for a phenomenon or problem.
A theory should be disposed of when it has been thoroughly tested and has consistently failed to explain or predict a phenomenon or problem.
To dispose of a theory, one must gather and analyze evidence that contradicts or undermines the theory, and then present this evidence to the scientific community for review and consideration.
Yes, it is common for theories to be disposed of in the scientific community. In fact, this process is an essential part of the scientific method as it allows for the continual refinement and improvement of our understanding of the natural world.
While it is possible for a disposed theory to be revisited and potentially revived, it would require new evidence or a new perspective that can explain the phenomenon or problem in a way that the previously disposed theory could not. This new evidence or perspective would need to be rigorously tested and accepted by the scientific community before the theory can be considered valid once again.