I will replace this file soon with a better framed one
#Eidometry
fleet knot
dusky path
Did you make this in MS Word?
fleet knot
google docs with latex
fleet knot
Did you make this in MS Word?
why? is there a better tool?
dusky path
why? is there a better tool?
No, it's just missing inline subscript, so I thought you used it
fleet knot
oh you mean like E_i?
yeah.. ive heard a lot of concerns over this being sloppy but im working on it
dusky path
"Better" is defined by everyone individually, depending on how it tends to their needs. Personally, I'd use an actual latex editor, not google docs
dusky path
oh you mean like E_i?
Yes, or even leaving out the underscore
fleet knot
Yes, or even leaving out the underscore
Yes. I'm aware. I dont come from a traditional background so this is super rough and I was missing some rigor. I'll try use an actual latex editor
dusky path
What I see as an issue too is switching between typefaces because your inline and display are different ones
dusky path
Yes. I'm aware. I dont come from a traditional background so this is super rough...
Considering the length of it, overleaf should do
It's simple and gets the job done, but sometimes struggles with documents longer than a hundred pages
fleet knot
Considering the length of it, overleaf should do
It's simple and gets the job do...
My proofing is gonna be more than 100 pages. If I'm right, I have to stress test every single assumption and equations in mathematics to see what holds. That is 80 years of math to filter and see what actually sticks as real and measurable in physicality and not just fancy number tricks. That's way down the road and a speculation now, but that feels like where it's headed
Rn I'm polishing the rules and i guess clarity on the foundations
if constants are outputs not inputs, then yk... i have to build a deeper scaffolding
fleet knot
Considering the length of it, overleaf should do
It's simple and gets the job do...
thank you btw. looking into that
fleet knot
So I don't know what this is because it's not physics, or math. It borders on both, but I was looking into how does anything define as "measurable"
Given a quanta, we should find the extent of what is correct (predictably measured) under this quanta. Once the quanta doesn't match the observations we make, we should not consider the quanta itself valid for any higher layer predictions. You found your arithmetic limit of where your assumptions hold and don't contradict.
So instead of assuming an infinite set of assumptions and seeing which ones work, we should find out the extent of what this count can measure. We say "On this quanta, what are the valid measurable solutions and where does its predictions stop?"
We shouldn't continue counting when the count contradicts itself on a fundamental level. If there's any observation that can't be described based on the count we define (quanta), then that quanta will never be able to measure or count that observation no matter the corrections.
This suggests that every system of measurement must be locally valid first, tested for scope, and invalidated at breakdown. So each count is tested to see if it survives observations. And only those counts that can match observations are allowed to make predictions. And if this count can't match the observation then we should abandon all further effort and define that as our boundary of what is a valid quanta.
You don't accept a unit of measurement just because it maps to a numbers system. You accept it only if:
- it can define valid measurements locally
- its predictions match the survival of distinguishable structure.
- it fails when it extends beyond its domain.
Failure occurs when the base system lacks the structure to represent the identity. You don't accept a unit of measurement just because it maps to a numbers system.
you accept it only if: it can define valid measurements locally and its predictions match the survival of distinguishable structure. And it fails when it extends beyond its domain.
failure occurs when the base system lacks the structure to represent the identity. not because the identity doesnt exist, but because measurements can fail.
For example:
Displaying 1/3 in base-10 as "0.333..." introduces an illusory paradox (incompleteness), even though it has a finite identity in base-3.
Attempting to measure irrational structure with finite, commensurate quanta in the wrong base causes representational failure, not ontological failure. This is the analogy on the filter you must put on your quanta and systems of measurements. What can it define? What can't it define?
fleet knot
In the case of arithmetic groups, looking at the real points of a certain linear algebraic group over the rationals can lose a lot of info about the underlying arithmetic subgroups. So you lose out on a lot of number theory if you consider everything as living in R and forget about the structure of the groups you had over Q.
Suppose we had 2 arithmetic groups in 2 different Q groups that had completely different arithmetic subgroups (one of them was not cocompact in the R points and the other was) but taking the R points of each gave the same exact group. The reals allow for too much wiggle room when trying to study arithmetic lattices in Lie groups.
Let's sum that up:
- R erased a difference that Q preserved, R failed the recursion filter
Measurement in R is invalid for Q as a fundamental quanta. Thus: one must reconstruct a morphism S that passes this filter. S cannot violate R or Q if it is based on the same quanta.
However: - If S violates R and Q based on the same quanta, then this is where you find your limits of quanta.
All further efforts should be abandoned and higher layers treated as invalid answers. If you're modeling a number field, an arithmetic group, a population system, or even a threshold of consciousness, then the extension of that system into another measurement field must not collapse distinction.
This becomes a general rule.
Every transformation must pass this recursive filter or forfeit its claim to be predictive
fleet knot
Most of math and physics starts by assuming structure exists (like points in space, smooth curves, or coordinate systems), but this approach skips the question: “Why do these structures hold up at all?” They are typically taken as primitives without first verifying whether such structures can preserve their defining relations under transformation without collapse of discernibility.
Without verifying structural validity, even the most well-behaved mathematical objects can collapse when tested against layered systems of quanta. Each layer is derived from the previous one by reapplying its output to test whether the structure remains consistent and distinguishable under deeper analysis. This introduces real consequences (e.g. modeling failure, contradiction) while staying abstract and formal. This framework begins with no assumed structures. Instead, it filters all candidates by whether they survive structural validity.
That is: structural validity is determined by the analogous “mutability” of the structure; by its ability to retain its defining relations under transformation without external correction.
last ferry
Most of math and physics starts by assuming structure exists (like points in spa...
They are typically taken as primitives without first verifying whether such structures can preserve their defining relations under transformation without collapse of discernibility.
That's because that sequence of words you just said doesn't actually mean anything.
fleet knot
> They are typically taken as primitives without first verifying whether such st...
To you.
Contribute or don't. If not. Please leave the discussion post
last ferry
Contribute or don't. If not. Please leave the discussion post
Telling you the words you're saying are meaningless is contributing.
If you think 2 + 2 = 17, and I tell you that's wrong, am I failing to contribute?
fleet knot
You just don't like me. You're snarky and you don't take me seriously
You do not contribute
you offer strawmen arguments
None of it has helped me
last ferry
None of it has helped me
Because you don't listen.
fleet knot
False. I listened. Your arguments were over semantics. Still is.
I acknowledge that I'm not using the right vocabulary
but you are not offering alternatives
So again. Either contribute or I'll consider bias.
last ferry
but you are not offering alternatives
To offer alternatives, I would have to have a fucking clue what you're trying to say.
Do you see the catch-22?
last ferry
I've told you several times that I can only understand a definition of a word I don't know if it doesn't contain any other words I don't know, and you've consistently failed to define your terms within those conditions.
fleet knot
Look at the application part. It uses real math and its all based on glossary terms.
It deals with the first three axioms and shows how a feedback loop is formed, which i call recursion
or not axioms
but first three equations. E, eta, and T
last ferry
Look at the application part. It uses real math and its all based on glossary te...
I'm not opening your sketchy-ass PDF.
fleet knot
fair
Hope that's a better alternative
If not, then stop contributing if you won't look at the math. You don't understand it anyway.
last ferry
Why can't you just use a regular-ass text file?
last ferry
If not, then stop contributing if you won't look at the math. You don't understa...
I've looked at "the math". You've shown me "the math". And "the math" is complete fucking nonsense.
fleet knot
either way
im working on it. im only gonna improve.
im just really fucking curious and you wont stop me
ill learn
fleet knot
proving myself wrong and correcting it.
i am comfortable with being wrong because i want to be corrected
if your argument is "i dont understand you"
that's not enough
show me why you dont understand me
last ferry
show me why you dont understand me
Because you keep using words I don't understand, and when I ask you to explain what they mean, you just say more words I don't understand.
fleet knot
Then maybe first principles and category theory is not for you.
last ferry
What the fuck are "first principles"? I know, in theory, what "first principles of [something]" means.
fleet knot
It is not starting from conventional math objects like sets or points or topologies. This requires actual rethinking what it even means for something to be 'defined'. That's first principles.
Im saying foundational recursion filters to test if something holds up without assumptions
What makes a structure even structurally valid before we do math on it?
last ferry
It is not starting from conventional math objects like sets or points or topolog...
See, that's just incoherent. An object is "defined" if and only if it is somehow meaningful to talk about it.
last ferry
Im saying foundational recursion filters to test if something holds up without a...
And this completely lost me.
fleet knot
You know mutability?
last ferry
Like, an object is "defined" if and only if there exists a definition of that object.
fleet knot
No. Do you understand the concept of mutability? Variable state changes?
Well, how much can a structure change without losing its structure?
last ferry
What is a "structure"?
What does it mean for a "structure" to "lose its structure"?
You're using the same word to describe an object and a property of that object.
dusky path
fleet knot
I'm not saying every undefined term is valid. I'm saying every presumed structure in math that uses measurements. So before I define what a thing is, I test to see if it can even survive contrast loss.
A structure is whatever that can survive slightly being changed and still recognize itself because the quanta itself is arbitrary to begin with in the first place.
If you change it a little bit and it collapses without any bootstraps, then it never had structure to begin with
The quanta we choose are arbitrary until structure survives. Measurement only becomes valid when the structure can sustain contrast. Before that, it's just a name.
So I dont mean structure as a predefined mathematical object. I mean any identity you assign discrete contrast and treat as stable without validating its own persistence.
last ferry
I'm not saying every undefined term is valid. I'm saying every presumed structur...
You keep using words I don't know.
last ferry
A structure is whatever that can survive slightly being changed and still recogn...
...so then something is only a "structure" if it's... self-aware?
last ferry
are those jumps valid?
What "jumps", and what does "valid" mean?
fleet knot
no if its bootstrapped
last ferry
no if its bootstrapped
...what?
fleet knot
It must be self-restoring. If you deform it, it can rebuild itself without outside help. That's what I mean by bootstrapped. It's contrast is still a contrast even after a lil deformation to the quanta.
Any identity that you try to count or measure, before showing it can show deformation without falling apart. You're treating it as stable but haven't proven its quanta.
Jumps are the number of logical steps enough to preserve identity. (Can you say 1.5? You can only say 1.5 if there is a discrete identity between 1 and 2. These are identity deformations across a field. I define this as recursion. DeltaE across feedback.. Are those logical steps allowed given the identity?
A structure is anything that can be slightly change and reconstruct itself without help. Because the quanta, the basic contrast unit, is arbitrary until proven persistent and bootstrapped.
If your identity falls apart from a small deformation then it never had real structure
You dont get to measure a thing until it survives a little deformation.
last ferry
It must be self-restoring. If you deform it, it can rebuild itself without outsi...
What is a "deformation"? How can a "structure" "rebuild itself"?
You keep using words I don't know.
fleet knot
Let's take this in one step at a time:
Let's assume E is a scalar field on the open interval (0, 1) and discerns "contrast" between the quanta and literal ontological collapse.
E=0 means there's no quanta. E=1 means there's no quanta.
last ferry
Let's take this in one step at a time:
Let's assume E is a scalar field on the ...
Let's not assume that, because I don't know what "E" refers to, I don't know what "contrast" is, I don't know what you mean by "quanta", and I especially don't know what a notion like "ontological collapse" is even doing here, much less what it means in this context.
last ferry
E=0 means there's no quanta. E=1 means there's no quanta.
If E is on (0, 1), then E is never 0 or 1.
fleet knot
Exactly. So quanta cannot be 0 or 1.
last ferry
You can't say "E is on (0, 1)" and then describe conditions when E is 0 or 1.
fleet knot
yes if you look at my axiomatics E=, eta=, T=
not axiomatics
bad habit
but look
oh i forgot to include the base E= in that new draft lol
I defined where its allowed but hold on
my earlier pdf had it
fleet knot
E0 = P[ sum over i=1 to N of abs((E,,,i) - (E,,,(i-1))) minus (eta_0 divided by (T_0 times log(1/E_0))) times Lambda(E_0) ]
Where: P(z) = 1 / (1 + exp(-z)) (soft constraint projection)
and Lambda(E_0) = minimum steps L such that E_0 can be regenerated from L recursive transitions
eta_0 = collapse resistance at E_0
T_0 = directional feedback ratio at E_0
last ferry
It is nonsensical to say "E is on (0, 1)" and then to talk about what happens when E = 0.
Why do you hear me say "you can't explain to me words I don't understand using words I don't understand" and just keep using words I don't understand?
fleet knot
Do you know ontology?
They are ontological points
they are forbidden
boundaries
defines why (0,1) is the only viable region
They're not values in the system
theyre structural death
E is not a number. It is a contrast condition.
it excludes 0 and 1 numerically
last ferry
Why do you hear me say "you can't explain to me words I don't understand using words I don't understand" and just keep using words I don't understand?
last ferry
Ok. I can't help you
That is quite possibly the first thing I've ever seen you say that's understandable and true.
fleet knot
That's not the rebuttal you think it is.
clear mauve
So if I've understood properly @fleet knot , you want to invent some kind of filter that checks if something can be...defined?
fleet knot
Yes, a filter for definability. So we can pit QFT and GR and Newtonian to see where our units stop making sense in these contexts. Where do the assumptions cause the break down and to what extent can we measure a structure? To what extent can they measure the thing theyre describing?
how long can the identity keep its contrast before the math eats it up?
clear mauve
How do you know you can define this filter?
maiden brook
How do you know you can define this filter?
Cooked 💀
fleet knot
How do you know you can define this filter?
If you cant ask that then you assume all numbers are valid. Im applying recursion to definition itself. If it can't boot itself under pressure, it's not physically admissible no matter how pretty the math looks. This is akin to having a mutability principle but for math layers
dont assume blind faith in your axioms
unreal shard
dont assume blind faith in your axioms
?????
i promise you that axioms mathematicians use are extremely well thought out
(mostly)
fleet knot
this is not real
Reality is what doesnt break when you stop believing in it and with math that proves it
unreal shard
and even then they are still argued about a fair bit
unreal shard
well mathematics doesnt need to rely on physics?
they are mostly separate things, apart from some areas which overlap
fleet knot
agreed. if not physics and its pure math, then im describing a collapse trigger system where say X reaches a threshold, and triggers Y to stabilize the complex systemic behaviors. This can model ecosystems far more efficiently if you reparametrize this framework.
and yeah, this isnt full math because its the ontology of math. and this isnt classic physics because im not assuming a manifold.
unreal shard
so you are doing work in dynamical systems?
last ferry
If you cant ask that then you assume all numbers are valid. Im applying recursio...
What is an "invalid number"? Also, you missed the whole point.
fleet knot
so you are doing work in dynamical systems?
Yes, well sort of. It is a meta-dynamical system, but not over state vectors or smooth differential flows. I'm not saying math = physics, or all axioms are wrong in any context.. but, any structure that is used to describe reality itself must prove it can survive deformations without external assumptions.
How do we prove that? Instead of tracking how systems evolve over time, I’m tracking how identities survive across recursive perturbation under dynamical systems.
It's closer to a viability theory of structure, where the survival of structure itself replaces temporal evolution. It models when and how an identity breaks, not when a state changes.
fleet knot
What is an "invalid number"? Also, you missed the *whole* point.
An invalid number is one that fails to preserve identity structure under feedback. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in a number system. I'm saying its uese fails to define a measurable structure in a given context if it cannot survive reapplication without contradiction.
Example. 1/3 is representable in base-3 but not base-10. Base-10 fails to express identity fully, so it's invalid for that system under my filter. That's not a math error, it's a structural misfit.
So to describe reality, your math has to be valid when subjected to this filter; whether it breaks under contrast.
unreal shard
so your issue is less with mathematical axioms and more with postulates of theoretical physics
fleet knot
I'm not just saying physics assumptions are flawed. The foundational mathematical structures themselves should have a filter of inadmissibility. Specifically. 1/3 isn't wrong because physics/math gets it wrong. It's invalid in base 10 because that base cannot preserve its identity across recursive feedback (0.333..) cannot recompose the exact original without loss or overfit. So it's not wrong, it just doesn't structurally fit. This is an epistemic deformation, not a logical contradiction. Where does this deformation become too big for you to consider it a valid count? Any measurement, number, or quantity must prove its recursive viability. If it fails that test, it’s not useful, not meaningful, and not real in your framework: regardless of whether it’s logically sound in a traditional system.
unreal shard
oh my god are you one of those neo pythagoreans like that saph person from a while back
that discussion post lasted for over 2k messages
fleet knot
Uh. No. I'm independent
I dont have a math background
I'm just synthesizing and im really curious
and i really like learning
unreal shard
it sounds eerily similar
the discussion back then was someone saying irrational numbers are not numbers because they are 'not measurable'
fleet knot
they ARE measurable under the right structural lens
irrationals are real
not real numbers
but like
physically admissable
sqrt(2) should be treated as a viable number even if its irrational because it has an identity and hones in a number via infinite processes because its stable.
its not random
its structurally viable and definitive. we're trying to locally define a quanta on a field with no real actual quanta.
unreal shard
i wouldnt really call any irrational 'random'
fleet knot
right and this filter would test for that
if its not 'random' then its valid
even if its irrational
unreal shard
give an example of a number you would consider random
fleet knot
to try and claim sqrt(2) in a base10 decimal number for example will create a structural drift of definition. It's not random until it structurally 'collapses'
then its invald, arbitrary, random. stops being predictive
unreal shard
i mean if we use a finite number of decimal points then it is just an approximation, but we can still assume it exists in decimal form with infinite decimal points
i dont really see why not
overall your structure seems to just limit what we can do with numbers and doesnt really seem to be adding anything to maths/physics from my perspective
what do we gain from limiting ourselves in this way
fleet knot
A number is only valid in a system if it preserves the identity deformation in that system. Measurement itself is only trustworthy when structure resists collapse under self-application. Calssical representation (like infinite decimals) can hide structural drift and lead to false prediction confidence. It's already enough that competing physics theories either create wildly different assumptions based on the same SI, or keep patching it with more convoluted math like string theory. It's a new kind of error detection. This should matter to physics and especially quantum modeling, approximation theory, and literal numerical instability.
What do we gain from rigor?
unreal shard
i promise you string theory has enough rigor
and i have never seen using numbers in the way we currently do lead to 'false prediction confidence'
most of physics is supposed to be approximations of whats really happening anyways
fleet knot
Well, I'm not satisfied with that.
unreal shard
no one is claiming something like f=ma is EXACTLY what happens and your numbers are going to work out perfectly, but in the classical sense it gets close enough
fleet knot
I'm not limiting math. I'm auditing math.
Im questioning literally the predictive admissability
unreal shard
i dont see how you 'auditing' is even slightly helpful
you make these wild claims about things like string theory but i dont really believe you know anything about string theory
you have brought up way too many different topics for you to know enough about each of them to say anything meaningful
fleet knot
Well, usefulness and helpful predictions breaks down when approximation hides structural failure. If it collapses under reapplication, then your model is invalid beyond its domain.
That doesn't just apply to physics
it can apply to physics
but literally any framework
unreal shard
most models are defined on a domain, why do you expect them to work beyond that
fleet knot
how much can it actually predict
This is a way to detect when your math breaks down before your predictions do.
Tell me that's not useful
unreal shard
what do you mean by 'your math breaks down'
fleet knot
structural drift
unreal shard
and.. what does that mean
fleet knot
to try and claim sqrt(2) in a base10 decimal number for example will create a st...
...
unreal shard
so when our numbers are not exact, which they never are in the real world
any measurement we take in real life is an approximation
you seem to want to do physics without any uncertainty
fleet knot
We should have predictive confidence boundaries
unreal shard
and what is a predictive confidence boundary
fleet knot
I'm protecting against literal misapplication?
unreal shard
misapplication how
fleet knot
Physics needs a way to know when its approximations have failed to preserve the identity they claim to approximate. Otherwise, it's not an approximation, it's a misrepresentation.
misrepresentation = misapplication
unreal shard
what is an identity in the context of the physics you are talking about
fleet knot
The quanta
unreal shard
an identity should normally be preserving the other numbers, not the other way around
oh
well we sort of do know how much uncertainty we have in quantum theory
im not super into experimental work, but in every single experiment all the possible uncertainties are taken into account in every measurement
and theories are made to predict according to all the data we have
and im telling you this now, you cannot predict if a theory is going to hold up outside of the data we have
i know you might want to, but it is not possible
a classical physicist could not have known whether their equations would hold up with relativity or not
fleet knot
Math is granted permission by structure, not assumed to be valid by default. Uncertainty in quantum theory is built into outputs. What I'm talking about is uncertainty in the validity of the structure doing the measurement. It's not how uncertain the answer is because it's whether the question is even allowed to be asked with that math.
unreal shard
do you mean a physical structure doing the measurement, like lab equipment?
or some mathematical structure of measurement
you really need to write this stuff in a less convoluted way
and again, i dont really believe you know a lot about quantum theory, because you have made claims about so many different fields i dont believe you can know all of them in detail
fleet knot
I agree. But I have improved my definitions. And I do mean mathematical structure of measurement.
unreal shard
that might seem like a rude thing for me to say, but genuinely its not possible for you to know in detail all of the topics you have brought up
fleet knot
I do not know all of them in detail but this is the first time I'm cracking at math.
unreal shard
so, would you like me to recommend a book for quantum theory?
unreal shard
if you are more on the basics, townsend is good
fleet knot
I'm down to learn more
unreal shard
more advanced id go with shankar
fleet knot
Nah. I've read a few quantum books already. Hawking too. Havent read shanker
unreal shard
books or textbooks
unreal shard
im not sure how good edx courses are cos ive never done any
ive never done category theory either
fleet knot
it's real cool stuff.
if you audit their courses you can get access to a lot of free info
you dont get grades or feedback but
that means you get to learn on your terms kinda.
you have the resources
unreal shard
there are other options for finding resources though
fleet knot
oh yeah
unreal shard
ive never seen a reason to use coursera or something similar
fleet knot
i mean i already paid for a double ba, i dont need to pay more for learning. I know I dont have the creditentials but I never claimed to.
courses are nice cuz they lay it out foru
and its kinda updated and modern too sometimes
unreal shard
dont you have to pay for most of the good stuff on coursera? the other options i gave are completely free
hmm i get what you mean
its good to have a direction to go in
fleet knot
i didnt pay for any of the good stuff lol. im saying you dont have to register the online courses
you can literally audit online courses
that way u get the class without paying
unreal shard
was the double ba expensive? bachelors are free where im from
fleet knot
but u dont get grades either so
Yeah. But I worked for like 5 years before that to get my education lol. Meanwhile I just worked and researched online for stuff. I learned a lot and I'll never not like learning
BA is cool but I needed credentials somehow. And I wish I could like get even more BAs
but they are expensive lol
id go philosophy science astronomy engineering and computer science on top of gov and history
unreal shard
if you like education that much why would it be more ba and not graduate studies?
fleet knot
and maybe psychology
unreal shard
you can get paid to do those yk
fleet knot
Because I just graduated and I dont have anyone to pay me to do it
Lol Id love to tho
fleet knot
Not in america I guess.
dissertations get funded
but not necessarily education
you can get sponsored
but im deaf and that doesnt instill a lot of confidence in most people but i dont care
unreal shard
dissertations get funded
doing work for papers/thesis should be the majority of phd work
and doing work as ta should be possible as part of it
fleet knot
Yeah. I dont need academic permission to do papers and thesis though. I can just correct myself and learn
unreal shard
i guess if thats all you want?
you seemed pretty ambitious though, so i think you should really try and look further into it
ask around and see what your options are
fleet knot
Sure. I'll do more of that.
unreal shard
good luck
maiden brook
Ngl but working smart and working hard won’t make a baseless framework automatically true
fleet knot
Of course it wouldn't
fleet knot
Ngl but working smart and working hard won’t make a baseless framework automatic...
I can accept being wrong. I can accept the fact that I don't have the vocabulary and more things to learn.
but you're not really seeing what I'm trying to do.
maiden brook
But like, it’s not about the verbiage or vocabulary, it’s about the lack of coherence in what you’re describing, to be honest im not sure you know what you’re talking about either
fleet knot
I do know what I'm talking about. Just because you don't doesn't mean I don't. Lol.
Do I have to refine it?
Yes
Do I need to prove it?
I did partially and I have more to go
not done
its internally consistent
it IS mathematically coherent
that much i did prove
It works as I had intended it to
Not gonna let you pretend that not understanding is the equivalent of invalidity
I'm using terminology nobody else has and I have work on my semantics to do
My framework does work.
That much I know
last ferry
My framework does work.
What the hell does it mean for it to "work"?
fleet knot
for identity contrast to work against measurment as a viable scalar quantity
last ferry
for identity contrast to work against measurment as a viable scalar quantity
None. Of. That. Means. Anything.
last ferry
To. Anybody.
last ferry
I dont understand your arguments
I know you don't! Because you refuse to understand anything!
last ferry
Because if you bothered to understand anything, you'd understand how the things you say make no goddamn sense.
fleet knot
To you
last ferry
To anyone.
fleet knot
i cant help you dude
last ferry
You can't even help yourself, so that's not surprising.
last ferry
Because there's nothing to construct!
fleet knot
so i am helping myself by ignoring your lack of understanding
i do not need to prove to you.
last ferry
so i am helping myself by ignoring your lack of understanding
Nobody understands what you're saying including you.
last ferry
i do not need to prove to you.
Yes you do. I'm asking for no more than anyone would. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide it.
last ferry
I understand perfectly fine
If you understood it, you'd be able to explain it, but you're not.
fleet knot
What do you want me to provide besides semantic drifts?
name them
specifically
for once
not definition. if youre stuck on semantics
you have nothing to offer
perhaps rereading the whole chat will help you too
last ferry
not definition. if youre stuck on semantics
If. You. Cannot. Define. Your. Terms. How. The. Fuck. Is. Anyone. Supposed. To. Understand. What. The. Fuck. You. Are. Saying? How. Is. Anyone. Even. Supposed. To. Tell. You. Are. Saying. Anything. At. All?
fleet knot
I defined my terms already
last ferry
No. The. Fuck. You. Did. Not. You. Just. Said. A. Bunch. Of. Other. Undefined. Terms.
You. Cannot. Define. A. Word. I. Don't. Know. Using. Other. Words. I. Don't. Know.
fleet knot
Cuz theres no other terms for it
last ferry
You. Are. Bad. At. Communicating.
last ferry
No, you being bad at communicating is definitely a problem for you.
fleet knot
no, you obsessing over this is a problem
we established this
i cant help you on first principles
last ferry
we established this
No the fuck we did not.
fleet knot
we did.
last ferry
No. We. Did. Not.
last ferry
Define "recursion". Define "scalar field".
fleet knot
Recursion is everytime the feedback loop goes back and self verifies. Its a self application. And scalars assign one value to everything.
last ferry
You. Cannot. Use. Words. I. Don't. Know. In. A. Definition. Of. A. Word. I. Don't. Know.
fleet knot
like what
feedback?
you dont know
feedback?
how about verify?
looping?
applications?
really?
you dont know any of these?
last ferry
Not the way you use them, no.
unreal shard
Techie is definitely being overly hostile, but you definitely do need to work on using standard mathematical terminology to represent your ideas
fleet knot
Yes I agree
unreal shard
Techie is sort of always like that tho tbh
last ferry
Recursion is everytime the feedback loop
What "feedback loop"?
goes back
"Goes back" where?
and self verifies.
"Self-verifies" what? What does it mean to "self-verify"?
Its a self application.
A "self-application" of what to what, and how can that thing apply anything to anything?
last ferry
Techie is definitely being overly hostile, but you definitely do need to work on...
They need to learn what a fucking definition is and how it's supposed to fucking work.
fleet knot
They need to learn what a fucking *definition* is and *how it's supposed to fuck...
hostility is a great way to communicate that?
last ferry
hostility is a great way to communicate that?
I'm not hostile, I'm just annoyed at your dismissal of my legitimate criticism.
last ferry
How can I give you alternatives if I don't know what the fuck you're trying to DO?
maiden brook
Everyone on this thread collectively agrees your “framework” is a bunch of gibberish that only makes sense to you (i doubt), idk why you insist that “Oh you simply cannot understand it but i do” while being an informal “independent” learner who has no fundamental grasp of physics or math
You literally are giving independent learners who actually study principled physics and mathematics a bad name by literally saying a bunch of words that make no sense and have little correlation with each other
fleet knot
this isnt about me or you
maiden brook
It isn’t
maiden brook
It’s about your “ideas” and how it makes no sense. To Anybody
fleet knot
that i need to define it better
maiden brook
It’s about your “ideas” and how it makes no sense. **To Anybody**
Yes, this is the fact.
last ferry
that i need to define it better
What do you think a "definition" is?
maiden brook
&/&/&/&::$&228377:$:7382$2728282273$3)3
kindred siloBOT
RamDejin
Compile Error! Click the 
reaction for more information.
(You may edit your message to recompile.)
maiden brook
Oh wait lemme define that better
fleet knot
mock me if you want.
maiden brook
&/&/&/&::$&228377:$:7382$2728282273$ so 2)2))2)22))/2)2272727 = thehwhgahshshsywuuqua
kindred siloBOT
RamDejin
Compile Error! Click the reaction for more information.
(You may edit your message to recompile.)
maiden brook
mock me if you want.
I am not mocking you but giving you an analogy, u’ve kept this up for like, 3+ days now?
And u still cannot explain one use or application of your “framework” without writing a novel
That’s how you know your ideas make no sense, even to you
fleet knot
Im longwinded and Ive always been
last ferry
What do you think a definition is?
fleet knot
Well.. okay fine. A definition is about clarity and having boundaries to agree on
They identify what should fall under the term
last ferry
Well.. okay fine. A definition is about clarity and having boundaries to agree o...
No. A definition is an explanation of what a word means.
fleet knot
same thing
last ferry
The point of an explanation is that someone who doesn't know what the word means can use the definition to learn what it means.
That's why a definition doesn't work if it has more words you don't know in it.
fleet knot
That's *why* a definition *doesn't work* if it has *more words you don't know in...
explain "the"
humor me lets follow this exercise
explain "the"
last ferry
explain "the"
"The" is what's called an article. Articles go before nouns, and "the" specifically is what's called the definite article, being used to indicate a specific instance of the noun. Think about if I asked you to "bring me a glass of water". You'd probably go get a glass and fill it with water. But if I asked you to "bring me the glass of water", you'd assume there was some glass around that already had water in it and go look for that.
fleet knot
explain why articles go before nouns
hidden hornet
"The" is what's called an article. Articles go before nouns, and "the" specifica...
i don't understand why you're dedicating so much time to arguing with this person
last ferry
explain why articles go before nouns
They don't always. The indefinite article, "a/an", typically only goes before singular nouns, to indicate that you're referring to any singular instance of that noun. The definite article is always used to tag specific instance(s) of the noun being referred to.
fleet knot
"The" is what's called an article. Articles go before nouns, and "the" specifica...
which contradicts your definitions
last ferry
which contradicts your definitions
How?
fleet knot
articles go before noun was stated as a fact. also what is an article?
last ferry
"Articles go before nouns" is a fact. "Nouns always have articles before them" is not.
fleet knot
touche.
last ferry
articles go before noun was stated as a fact. also what is an article?
"Article" is just the name for the part of speech that tags nouns in this way.
fleet knot
so why article?
last ferry
I dunno. There's probably some etymological history to that.
maiden brook
Aha!
fleet knot
okay. now analogous to
maiden brook
Hence eidometry is true!
fleet knot
why quanta?
last ferry
Except I already explained to you what an article is.
last ferry
"Article" is just the name for the part of speech that tags nouns in this way.
@fleet knot
maiden brook
"The" is what's called an article. Articles go before nouns, and "the" specifica...
Read
fresh moon
Are we arguing about what an article in grammar is?
maiden brook
Ohhhh
maiden brook
Are we arguing about what an article in grammar is?
Absolutely not
fleet knot
yes because hes a troll 🙂
maiden brook
😭😭😭
last ferry
Are we arguing about what an article in grammar is?
Not in specific, it's an instance of me showing Papa Dragon what an explanation actually looks like.
fresh moon
Ah
maiden brook
Brother really cannot define his own framework with a simple coherent example, and he’s the troll?😭💀
maiden brook
Not with an example you did not
fresh moon
God I love this server 🍿
last ferry
It's not a definition of any use if it contains more terms we don't know.
maiden brook
U can’t string up some words about the “quanta” and expect it to mean anything
fleet knot
but its buried under techie's tantrum
last ferry
Why do I have to keep repeating this to you?
I've said this several time. I've explained why.
last ferry
I thought the Time Cube guy was dead.
fleet knot
again. i have not mocked a single one of you except techie because ive been mocked consistently. I do not learn that way.
maiden brook
Funny thing is the author of this forum is presenting his framework called “Empirinometry” , some similar gibberish to what you’re proposing papa dragon!
You are not wanting to learn
You are wanting to be correct
About something that is unfortunately just plain gibberish
How have you not identified this issue of yours
last ferry
again. i have not mocked a single one of you except techie because ive been mock...
Apparently you don't learn any way, because we've been trying.
fleet knot
cuz the math works
last ferry
cuz the math works
What do you think it means for math to "work"?
maiden brook
Of the math, using numbers
last ferry
Let's take a simple example. F = ma. Newton's second law. What does this mean?
What it means is, if you measure any two of an object's force, mass, or acceleration, you can calculate the third.
last ferry
It's a description of a mathematical relationship between well-defined, measurable physical quantities.
maiden brook
Wait what the hell
fleet knot
what is m?
maiden brook
Why does the author of the forum’s work sound like the same gibberish as yours? That’s kinda odd
last ferry
So to say that Newton's second law "works" is to say that if you do measure an object's mass and acceleration, and you multiply them together, and then you measure the force on the object, the equation will have accurately predicted the force.
maiden brook
https://mathforums.com/t/varia-does-it-mean-what-i-think-it-means.373124/
This is literally what you’re doing, proposing a framework with no actual justification or implementation, it’s actually uncanny how similarly incomprehensible and unintelligible both of your “Frameworks” are
And u both call it “Eidometry” vs “Empirinometry”
😭😭😭
Crankvengers
Assemble
last ferry
This is literally what you’re doing, proposing a framework with no actual justif...
Calling this "proposing a framework" is frankly extremely charitable. A more accurate description would be "saying a bunch of nonsense and claiming it's a 'framework', whatever you think that means".
maiden brook
I followed up with “its incomprehensible…” to kinda negate defining it as a framework
maiden brook
Calling this "proposing a framework" is frankly extremely charitable. A more acc...
But yeah totally my bad
fleet knot
that is super circular
maiden brook
Ill tell u what is
fleet knot
what is a hash function?
maiden brook
Ill tell u what is
The hole in my brain after reading the forum
maiden brook
what is a hash function?
Dude, fuck if i know😭😭😭 i linked this to show you how similarly incomprehensible y’alls works are💀😭
fresh moon
I gotta give it credit, the pdf sounds fancy
maiden brook
😭😭
last ferry
what is a hash function?
A hash function is a function that takes as input some digital data, and yields as output a string of fixed length.
maiden brook
I gotta give it credit, the pdf sounds fancy
U know the author has a github page of his research, absolutely 0 files of code
All .txt
fleet knot
I actually have clean ontological grounding. I have concrete formalism, and I have self normalization.
that framework doesnt
so honestly
last ferry
I actually have clean ontological grounding. I have concrete formalism, and I ha...
I don't think you do.
fleet knot
mock me if you want
yes i do
go ahead
look
or scroll up
this is not the same as that guy
if you refuse
last ferry
I know you think that.
last ferry
I don't understand why you think this document, written by you, is any better of an explanation of your idea than the things you've written in this channel.
fleet knot
it is
last ferry
But why do you think that, though?
fleet knot
cuz it has ALLL THE DEFINITIONS YOU WANT
and an example
of what a fucking loop is
ive been putting it into different words for you
last ferry
Discernibility
Measurement retains its conventional SI meaning: the assignment of quanta to observables using standardized units.
Eidometry does not redefine measurement. It introduces discernibility as a precondition for when measurement itself becomes valid. That is, no structure can be assigned a measurement unless it first demonstrates structural validity.
The Hydron (explained fully below) defines the threshold as to when measurements become meaningful or otherwise. Measurement in Eidometry is not rejected or redefined, but it is filtered by whether identity itself can persist under any transformation. A structure is measurable as defined:
What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Supposed. To. Mean?
fleet knot
keep reading
last ferry
Why should I?
fleet knot
because it defines that
last ferry
This isn't the definition???
fleet knot
keep reading. its a recursive logic
last ferry
What the fuck does that mean???
fleet knot
okay dont.
maiden brook
keep reading. its a recursive logic
I asked you last time, do u even fucking know what recursion means?
fleet knot
stop reading and stop trying
maiden brook
stop reading and stop trying
Answer what you think recursion means, you spam that term like it’s a slur in a COD MW3 lobby
last ferry
Recursion is everytime the feedback loop goes back and self verifies. Its a self...
@maiden brook
last ferry
stop reading and stop trying
So you were wrong. Your document isn't better at explaining than you are. Which should not be surprising, since you wrote it. I don't know why you thought it would be.
maiden brook
Recursion is everytime the feedback loop goes back and self verifies. Its a self...
That’s, not even true, it’s not a “loop” but a recurrence, there is no feedback, it’s a self application sure; but u missed the most important point about a recursion
A base case
last ferry
That’s, not even true, it’s not a “loop” but a recurrence, there is no feedback,...
It's not a "self-application", either.
fleet knot
keep laying out your critiques. I will actually take my time and do my due diligence
last ferry
keep laying out your critiques. I will actually take my time and do my due dilig...
That'll be a first.
maiden brook
It's not a "self-application", either.
Depends on how u interpret self-application, in a recursive function you do define the function again on both lhs and rhs
fleet knot
i actually did
maiden brook
Take the factorial function for instance
maiden brook
It can be written recursively as f(x) = xf(x-1)
fleet knot
i have logarithmic
maiden brook
With base case f(0) =1
last ferry
So you went from meaningless word vomit to meaningless symbol vomit. How is that better?
maiden brook
F(x) applies/uses F(x-1) which is kinda a “self” application, but the context you’re using self application in a “feedback” loop is just wrong
fleet knot
cuz i didnt go from meaningless word vomit. But thats all my earlier papers were
then i took classes
maiden brook
fleet knot
and got this framework
maiden brook
Read this and explain why ur framework is more valid than MATTHEW’s
last ferry
then i took classes
Did you pass them?
fleet knot
The ones I paid for yes
last ferry
The ones I paid for yes
...so there were ones you didn't pay for that you failed?
maiden brook
Lol
last ferry
"Audited"?
fleet knot
Yeah. You can show up without being an actual student and get the same info
last ferry
Except for the info of whether you correctly understood what was taught, which is, y'know, the important part.
last ferry
Get the fuck over yourself with these "semantics".
We're "still on semantics" because you keep saying fucking nonsense and refusing to fucking define it in a way I can fucking understand. Just do that if you're tired of arguing about whether the things you say mean anything.
last ferry
My critique is that you keep saying fucking nonsense and refusing to fucking define it in a way I can fucking understand.
maiden brook
but its still on semantics
Sanity check: do you think there’s good reason whatever framework you’re proposing has been downright ridiculed by every single individual who has interacted with you on this subject? Now do you think all of us are crazy? Or are you gonna begin to contemplate if your “work” might be the problem after all…
Think about it, no need to respond
And then when you hopefully come to your senses, we can see good use of the command +close
fleet knot
Actually, I had a few people understand me and they tried the math themselves and it worked
last ferry
...is English your first language?
fleet knot
no. sign language is. i spoke fluently at like 16
last ferry
Which sign language?
last ferry
Wait, so what was the first language you learned to read? Is there written ASL?
last ferry
its visual
Really? I thought it was an auditory sign language.
fleet knot
I could read english, but I wasnt fluent until older
maiden brook
I actually made a lstm-rnn that converted asl to singular english words
And then used an llm agent to collect the array of translated words by the lstm rnn and then form a sentence in english that matches the given context
Fun capstone
last ferry
I could read english, but I wasnt fluent until older
Judging by your performance here, I'm not sure I'd call you "fluent" now.
fleet knot
Grammatically.
fresh moon
Judging by your performance here, I'm not sure I'd call you "fluent" now.
Semantics
fresh moon
I tried to read the pdf and it did feel like philosophical text honestly, I couldn't understand definitions and suddenly long formulas popped up
Throwback to when I tried to read about Omega Point
fleet knot
its math from a single scalar quantity
its dense but not jargon
i need help in expressing it not just being told "i dont get it"
fresh moon
Yeah, can you please elaborate on what "recursive measure of persistent distinction" means?
fleet knot
eta keeps a count
maiden brook
fleet knot
eta is collapse resistance
fleet knot
eta = 1 means the most stable and valid solution
maiden brook
What is recursive logistics? Fractal structures
fresh moon
Shh
maiden brook
eta = 1 means the most stable and valid solution
Go on
fresh moon
I am looking at pdf rn. I am trying to understand it better but I still have questions
fresh moon
eta = 1 means the most stable and valid solution
Does that mean that the structure is "saturated", as it says so here for E = 1?
fleet knot
No. E is not eta.. E is a new scalar field. I recognize my semantic drifts but I am trying to define E as structural viability. As in the example of Base-3 1/3 and Base-10 0.333. One is a complete identity, the other is not. You wanna argue everything is approximation, great. It is, but where does that approximation structurally break down compared to the actual value?
base-10 0.3333 can approximate only up to so many degrees before its structurally incapable of being a valid quanta
its not cuz its wrong
its cuz its not 1/3
fresh moon
I see
fleet knot
i am trying to quantify this drift by bootstrapping. and counting each bootstrap without contradiction as a viable quanta
if each bootstrap comes back as eta=1
its valid
fresh moon
Errr, let's do one step at a time, I am not that good at philosophy
fleet knot
sorry
fresh moon
No. E is not eta.. E is a new scalar field. I recognize my semantic drifts but I...
Well, for E to be a scalar field, you assign a scalar value to every point in space. In the example you have two abstract entities. My question is how do you construct this scalar field? How do you compute the scalar based on a point in space?
fleet knot
base-10 0.3333 can approximate only up to so many degrees before its structural...
i dont. i dont assume space. im not defining temporal change across space. im defining structural integrity across depths
fresh moon
What is depth?
fleet knot
so. if you have 0.33 thats not very deep compared to 1/3. if you have 0.333333333333333 its closer, but it still has an approximation failure down the line.
fresh moon
Oh, so can you say that depth is a measure of accuracy of an approximation?
fleet knot
yes thatd be a way to put it
fresh moon
Uhuh, I see. But still, generally accepted definition of a scalar field is a function that takes a vector as an input and returns a scalar value as an output. If you're not assuming space, then what do you mean by E being a scalar field?
fleet knot
Honestly that's why Its eidometry not calculus. Im aware its not traditional math. And Im not pretending it is. Its a framework Im trying to define
its scalar for a bootstrap
how stable that bootstrap is
they all have to be ratios
i really need to sleep but i can continue more on this
fresh moon
Honestly that's why Its eidometry not calculus. Im aware its not traditional mat...
Well, honestly you should define your own terminology instead of reusing traditional math's. To avoid confusion
fresh moon
i really need to sleep but i can continue more on this
Sure, sleep well!
clear mauve
Actually, I had a few people understand me and they tried the math themselves an...
What did they do exactly?
faint steppe
#1377737913466360049 message
Read this message (it should link to the first message in the thread)
Might give you a bit of insight in our experience
Maybe you find the message very interesting
fleet knot
https://discord.com/channels/624314920158232616/1377737913466360049/137773791346...
This is..... creative?
There are no first princples. There's no internal metric. It uses geometry without falsifiability. There's no reproducable systems. It relies on metaphor not formal variables or invariants.
fleet knot
Well, honestly you should define your own terminology instead of reusing traditi...
And you're right. I'm misusing the term scalar in the classical sense. I'm describing a contrast map (is that better, perhaps?) where it's a function assigning a scalar value to each structurally distinct recursive identity state, based on how well it survives contrast degradation.
It is field-like in that it maps domain to scalar values but it's not geometric.
I'll drop the term but I still need something to define
I still need a term for: scalar over recursive depth that encodes contrast without assuming space or time.
just realized i did a word vomit again. but still
fleet knot
Well, honestly you should define your own terminology instead of reusing traditi...
You're asking me to make up even more terms.
How do I make the analogy that this is a field domain, but not in a geometric sense. It's still functionally a scalar but it's not a traditional scalar.
faint steppe
Everyone on this thread collectively agrees your “framework” is a bunch of gibbe...
This here is the essence of this thread
Nobody has any clue what you're talking about and you've shown no signs of improvement
Give up. Go talk somewhere else, with your data scientist friend
fleet knot
Nope.
I wont give up
If you want me to give up. You give up and go somewhere else.
I won't quit because some dude behind a computer said so
faint steppe
Oh don't worry about that. Just kindly telling you that talking here is and will continue to be a waste of everybodies time
fleet knot
Then don't waste your time
faint steppe
I won't quit because some dude behind a computer said so
Quit talking here, we couldn't care less about what you tell your friends
faint steppe
Then don't waste your time
Again, I'm not saying it for my own sake, I'm saying it for yours
You should learn mathematics before believeing you achieved some giant breakthrough. It's a waste of your time, you won't get any further in this discord
fleet knot
Hmmmmmm... No
I did
I learned math
I'm offering a framework that's new and uses different math concepts
and if you cant synthesize it like I can
eh
your lack of understanding is not invalidity of my framework
If you want to invalidate my framework, then invalidate it in my terms since its all first principles
faint steppe
The point is, like RamDejin neatly explained, that there are many math experts here with proper acedemic education, and every single person told you it's worthless gibberish
Everyone on this thread collectively agrees your “framework” is a bunch of gibberish
Accept the message
fleet knot
People that actually refused to open it. Moth was the one that got close to understanding.
Either way, Jehare. You're not stopping me from learning more math or physics or whatever the hell I want to learn.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at least prove it. Not "I don't understand it"
and I know you can't prove it if you don't understand it
but thats the whole point
You can't understand it so you can neither prove it or disprove it yet
Once you can understand it
you can disprove it to me
its actually falsifiable and I tested for that
I havent falsified myself but I'm learning more how to
So no
Your lack of understanding does not equate to incoherence
I'm looking for REAL falsifiability not more tantrums
clear mauve
What did they do exactly?
I insist
left fjord
I'm looking for *REAL* falsifiability not more tantrums
Ok write your entire neatly with clean derivations with all axioms and clear definitions with proofs as a clear paper then i will personally check it everyword and give you the honest critical review i can.
last ferry
Your lack of understanding does not equate to incoherence
Our lack of understanding is a fundamental failure of communication on your part if nothing else.
fleet knot
Ok write your entire neatly with clean derivations with all axioms and clear def...
I'll improve it with what I've learned here.
i'm misusing terms like scalar and its confusing everyone.
last ferry
I'm looking for *REAL* falsifiability not more tantrums
You can't keep fucking doing this. I've told you over and over that in order to falsify your claim we need to understand it. It needs to mean something, otherwise it's equivalent to me demanding you falsify the statement "fleeble jurbin plarp".
fleet knot
You can't keep fucking doing this. I've told you *over and over* that in order t...
And I'm putting in effort. Just be patient with me. I don't have the dictionary for it but I dont mind developing one for it. Okay? I'm no stranger to critique or feedback. But you're getting frustrated over my attempts.
and im trying to make this productive enough for you to test it
last ferry
And I'm putting in effort. Just be patient with me. I don't have the dictionary ...
I'm getting frustrated over your smug dismissal of criticism as your critics just not being smart enough to understand your idea. No. It's your fault. You are failing to communicate.
fleet knot
I AM failing to communicate. I am not smug. Failing to communicate is NOT the same as a incoherent framework.
It is NOT invalidity
last ferry
I've told you over and over what you need to do to communicate successfully.
And you fail over and over.
fleet knot
I'm still learning. I know scalar isnt the right word anymore
last ferry
You know what it means when you repeatedly fail to communicate an idea? It means you probably didn't understand it as well as you thought. You know what it means when the person who invented an idea doesn't understand it? That it probably makes no goddamn sense.
unreal shard
i just checked on coursera out of interest and couldnt find any course on category theory
i thought this whole thing was based on the category theory you learned on coursera
fleet knot
i just checked on coursera out of interest and couldnt find any course on catego...
edx
not coursera
unreal shard
still cant find it
fleet knot
hold on i still have the resources
unreal shard
i just want to see if the stuff you have been learning is actually good content or not tbh lol
last ferry
I'm still learning. I know scalar isnt the right word anymore
That is literally the one word it felt like you might have been using kind of correctly. By accident, certainly, and it's not like I can be sure you weren't horribly misapplying it.
fleet knot
It's not really by accident. It's still the wrong word because it's not geometric. I do know what I'm talking about and I see the relationships and I see how the math works and how it bootstraps. It's understandable and it's coherent. I think another one is that I'm confusing "measurement" with "discernability" with "quanta" and they all mean different things and I need to clean up my ambiguity with that.
clear mauve
Hey, I have a little question for you dragon, can you prove to me that the "filter" that you have defined holds itself?
fleet knot
I actually did with my 1/e example
it returned the value via bootstraps and showed contrast.
it showed that eta=1, which means valid structure
clear mauve
Can you write down the proof here, or show it to me?
fleet knot
sure. but its in the context with reference equations that I was using so on its own youre gonna ask "what the hell did you use" but im more than happy to take you through it and show you which equations I used... OH AND THE RESOURCES
i forgot the resources hold on
i need to upload em
my pc discord is updating slowly ;-; meanwhile, i'll do the example
"To find the most collapse-resistant point, we must consider that E = 1/e ≈ 0.3679 is the most structurally stable identity loop. However, this number does not reflect maximal contrast (0.5) of identity which would give us 0.6931 instead. We will assume 1/e first and see where this takes us:
Based on E=0.3679; if we plug in E to my axioms, we find η≈0.1 and T≈0.02718. That is far more informative than a flat fixed point like E=0.5, which gives (ΔE)^2=0 and no evolution. Here, the identity is in motion but perfectly self-correcting. That is your loop. E=1/e isn’t a dead-end attractor, but an origin point of this filter. Identities can stabilize there but also transit through or evolve around it. It is the only known point where recursive strain is both active and survivable at unity. Thus, relative to ΔE=1 (literally 1 quanta, the first discernible contrast unit from indistinguishability, a single viable contrast jump) bootstrapping its identity and assuming all logarithms are natural log (base e): we get T≈2.718 and η=1.
Recall that T is how sensitive identity is to contrast change. At E = 1/e, T reaches Euler’s number which is very meaningful: It suggests that identity contrast at this point evolves exponentially efficiently under strain. There is a rapid response without runaway collapse.
Recall that η is your identity survival score. Getting exactly 1 means: the structure is perfectly balanced against collapse. It neither decays nor explodes under recursion strain. η=1 defines the critical survivability threshold: any higher and identity is overstretched. Any lower and it collapses.
This gives you a natural unit of resistance against which all identities can be compared to thus producing quanta itself as a structurally valid prediction model of measurement. The numbers are a natural consequence of the identity contrast field and its logarithmic behavior. The fact that η=1 at E=1/e gives you a canonical normalization point. Any other identities can be scaled in relation to this one.
These results confirm that E=1/e produces a structural constant. This is not the attractor point for the universe, but it is a critical balance point where collapse resistance is one and the directional feedback is euler’s number. This is a reference identity from which all others are compared to. Structures can begin, stabilize, or transit through E=1/e but recursion pushes them onward. It is a structural fulcrum, while eidropy moves everything forward.
So even though the identity is maximally collapse-resistant, it is not static. This is a non-trivial dynamic equilibrium. This is not a contradiction, this is a feature of recursion: the identity loop survives indefinitely (η=1) while still processing contrast steps (ΔE > 0) with maximum efficiency (T = e). The structure isn’t inert. It is stable under recursive strain as well as active (not collapsing, not diverging, but evolving)."
This is a direct copy and paste. I have made no changes to it.
lean lodge
A structure is whatever that can survive slightly being changed and still recogn...
how are you deforming mathematical objects? isn't that just replacing it with a different object? how do you expect its identity to reassert itself if you just changed the object to something different? what does slightly deformed mean? (i can hit objects with some pretty big deformations [replacing 0 with 1, for example... i don't expect the identity of 0 to reassert itself after this deformation, but that doesn't mean 0 is invalid])
fleet knot
I still need to elaborate and clarify on a lot of things
and my first pdf had the E= equation, but not my txt file
and thats my fault
fleet knot
how are you deforming mathematical objects? isn't that just replacing it with a ...
i am deforming quanta via scalar field by contrasting their "true identities" vs the quanta we're using that doesn't express its full identity. As in the case with .333 and 1/3 depending structurally on base-3 or base-10. this creates deformations in the quanta itself.
so how valid is base-10 compared to base-3, structurally?
how much can you count before it diverges from what you're trying to count?
It's a way to predict that
lean lodge
uh, so i think what you're saying is you're comparing an object to an incomplete definition of it
fleet knot
That's a cleaner way to put it.
lean lodge
but how incomplete? again, what if we just delete the definition?
fleet knot
It's a structural viability test, not a replacement of math
or physics.
its just... is it viable to make predictions within accepted thresholds of error?
its uncertainty in our own count
and we need to account for that
lean lodge
i feel like this does not answer my question
fleet knot
elaborate
lean lodge
this concept of changing something and comparing it is very fundamental to your entire project
you should be able to very specifically say exactly what it means to change it
fleet knot
Ah. Okay. Let me make the distinction clearer: deleting a defintion entirely gives you no structure to test which is what I define as collapse. There's nothing left to bootstrap or to recursively define "yes, I'm still me". That's annihilation and that's why the only valid numbers are between 0 and 1, since they define collapse.
I'm not removing the identity. It's testing representations of that identity (0.3333 in place of 1/3) and seeing how far they remain faithful to 1/3. If I stop at 0.3, I collapse quicker than if I stopped at 0.3333...because 0.3333 deforms 1/3 less than 0.3 deforms 1/3.
The deeper the approximation, the more effort is needed to collapse it: that’s the recursive deformation threshold.
lean lodge
so this is not a test you can apply to an object, it must be applied to an ordered pair (object, approximation)?
if that's the case, how are you stress-testing math, which in most cases isn't using any approximations for anything?
fleet knot
Yes, that is exactly right. You can't test deformation in isolation. The identity sets the standard, and approximation is measured against it. And...
That's exactly the crux. Math doesn’t use approximations: it defines objects precisely, within a symbolic system. But here's the issue: The precision of formal definitions does not guarantee predictive power. So, what I test isn’t how well-defined something is (which is what math is all about): I test whether the structure survives recursive self-reference without contradiction or collapse.
Math definitely defines sqrt(2) as the root of x^2=2
But it still required encoding to compute, compare or model. The moment you use that structure in analysis or modeling or digital systems, you must represent it via approximation and that's where the structural viability gets exposed.
lean lodge
we can prove sqrt(2) > 1 without approximating sqrt(2) though
none of math should involve saying "sqrt(2) is about 1.4, so this is close to 1.5, so this is about π/2"
we should not be talking about manifolds by saying "manifolds are approximately R^n"
last ferry
Yes, that is exactly right. You can't test deformation in isolation. The identit...
You need to stop using the words you made up to explain things, because we don't know the words you made up.
lean lodge
and anyway, this doesn't seem like a very insightful way to look at numbers with infinite decimal expansion
like, look, if we use more digits, the number is closer?
last ferry
Wait, are you serious? This whole time, you were talking about measuring the accuracy of an approximation? There's already a bunch of fucking math that exists to do that.
fleet knot
Its identity is structurally viable only so long as you don’t force it to "land", truncate, round, or lock it into a finite number. You're no longer working with sqrt(2), but a representation of it.
It survives this filter because your approximations get better without ever collapsing into contradiction. That’s what I mean by structural viability. But the moment you land, you introduce deformation. And that is where it starts diverging from the true identity.
I'm not claiming whether sqrt(2) is "measurable", but it's valid because it has structure to define itself. It only holds up as a true structurally valid number BEFORE you force it to express itself in an approximation.
You're right that approximation error, convergence, and symbolic identity are all well-covered in math. I’m not trying to reinvent those tools. What I'm doing is different
lean lodge
oh my god they really are rxrsapphire again
fleet knot
At what point does the identity stop being structurally distinguishable from noise, saturation, or collapse?
unreal shard
oh my god they really are rxrsapphire again
that was exactly my thought!!!
i still wonder where saph went after that thread died out tho
fleet knot
I'm not asking how close an approximation is.
and I dont know who rxsapphire is
is there an old thread?
is it still around?
unreal shard
uh i think its closed but you can probably still search for it
it was called irrationality of pi
fleet knot
okay im not arguging against "reals" and "irrationals". that's not even my case at all.
is the irrational representation structurally viable? this would apply to reals too. if you put down a real number and said an approximation of 2.9 is 3 then how valid is that?
how much can it define before collapse?
unreal shard
we already have ways to add uncertainties together when using approximations for some calculation
fleet knot
Error bars tell you how far off your answer might be assuming the system you're using is still valid.
But I'm asking how long can your system survive before it's no longer valid at all to do anything on it?
lean lodge
i guess we should ask, why is there a time component to this? why does 0.3 survive less time as an approximation to 1/3 than 0.33333?
and how much time do each of these survive
unreal shard
Error bars tell you how far off your answer might be *assuming the system you're...
this makes literally no sense at all
'system no longer surviving' and 'no longer valid' just sound like situations where you have a very high uncertainty
and you are acting as if uncertainty is a different thing
fleet knot
i guess we should ask, why is there a time component to this? why does 0.3 survi...
Good catch, it's not the temporal sense. But yes. It's the duration of how long it can keep its true contrast.
fleet knot
'system no longer surviving' and 'no longer valid' just sound like situations wh...
This isn't a different thing, but its an uncertainty no one had expressed apparently. And they are situations where you have uncertainty enough where it literally contradicts itself on its own logic. 1/3 is never 0.3333 and that gives contradiction later down the line.
not just an approximation drift
unreal shard
ok im going to be very real with you at this point
i think you are either trolling or just very out of touch
from what i understand you have read some pop-sci books
these books are very good at making people feel like they know a lot more than they do
you need to read some actual textbooks
fleet knot
actually they are textbooks. im trying to send them but its loading.
unreal shard
is this only within category theory?
fleet knot
sorta. and data science cuz i looked into mutability. either way. im ready to send the files
its just slow
unreal shard
well learning some category theory and data science is not enough to create the kind of theory you are aiming for
fleet knot
clearly not, but its what set me on the path
i had formally taken up to calculus 101. then i did the rest of the math learning kinda on my own since i cant afford to pay for all that
unreal shard
so you went straight from calc 1 to category theory?
thick isle
@fleet knot can you explain this whole thing in such a manner that a hs student can understand (me)
fleet knot
It's not high school math in any case. I can teach you how to process the equations in a high-school way but I dont have presentations or slide shows for you or a whiteboard rn
its like asking for black hole thermodynamics to be explained in high school math
its doable i guess but
lol its not high school math
thick isle
Just the concept deemed down at a level of hs (no complicated words 
)
fleet knot
Let me try then.
unreal shard
its like asking for black hole thermodynamics to be explained in high school mat...
we actually did a little in my high school physics class
mostly just like the formula for schwarzschild radius from what i can remember
fleet knot
Imagine you're drawing a perfect circle on paper. You can never draw it perfectly. The hand shakes, the pencil isn't perfect. But you can get pretty damn close.
Now imagine someone uses that drawing to build a machine. If your circle is close enough, it works! But if it's too far off, the machine doesn't work!
Now, this sounds like approximation theory because it's in essence asking "how close did you get", and measuring error itself. But it's not because:
You give your almost perfect circle to someone building a machine that needs it to be really really really precise. At first the machine works, but if your circle isn't good enough, eventually the machine breaks. So what I'm asking is:
Will your approximation still hold up if you keep using it over and over? I'm not asking how wrong it is, I'm asking at what point does your circle stop being useful at all and start breaking the system?
unreal shard
you have said so many different things at this point, you yapped about something similar to dynamical systems before, and now you are just talking about approximation uncertainties
and at one point you even said something to discredit string theory
if you had actually read data science you wouldve started with an explanation closer to this
and there was the whole 'entropy with direction' thing
its like every time someone asks a question you completely change your entire theory
last ferry
Imagine you're drawing a perfect circle on paper. You can never draw it *perfect...
That's not how blueprints work.
fleet knot
you have said so many different things at this point, you yapped about something...
I didn't say it was fully a dynamical system
unreal shard
i said 'similar'
and the whole thing with using the approximation over and over is just adding uncertainties.
you can set some arbitrary threshold for when the uncertainty gets high enough and your system 'breaks'
fleet knot
You're not wrong to call it messy. I’ve been trying to meet people where they’re at, so sometimes I simplify or shift the angle depending on the question. That can definitely make it sound inconsistent.
But here’s the throughline: I’m not building a theory of uncertainty. I’m building a theory of structural survival; whether a definition or model can retain its own identity under recursion.
So yeah, I’ve referenced approximation, dynamical systems, entropy, even string theory... but always as examples of where structural assumptions are made without being tested for collapse. Most of the time, you ask how much the answer might drift. But you should ALSO ask whether the system even valid enough to hold itself together. If not then it doesn't even matter your answer drift because it's structurally invalid to start with. It's a precondition to do math like approximation theories.
If it helps, I can write it out clean, from top to bottom. But the core idea hasn’t changed once:
A structure is only valid if it can survive recursive deformation without losing what makes it itself.
That’s what everything I’m saying comes back to.
unreal shard
you are once again going back to a bunch of ill defined terms
because no one can call you wrong when they have no idea what you are saying
but every time you have started to explain things in detail, and with terminology other people understand
they have shown you where you are wrong.
fleet knot
I wish you could understand what I'm saying so you can call me wrong. But not understanding is not the basis on which you call me wrong. They have shown where I didn't communicate and I acknowledge I need help in that.
unreal shard
i understand enough to know you are wrong
fleet knot
Then on your terms, where am I wrong?
unreal shard
pretty much everywhere
thick isle
Imagine you're drawing a perfect circle on paper. You can never draw it *perfect...
This doesn't make sense why would it stop working unless the circle wears down after every use or something? If it worked the first time in machine why wouldn't it later , is machine doing something to the circle?
unreal shard
you are wrong to expect yourself to be completely correct and have no flaws in your haphazardly mushed together theory of everything you created after reading a few pop sci books
fleet knot
I'd seriously appreciate if you could point me to where my claims break down.
I do not expect to be correct. I expect to be corrected.
thick isle
This doesn't make sense why would it stop working unless the circle wears down a...
Also am not here to prove you wrong I am trying to understand this from the very basics
unreal shard
I'd seriously appreciate if you could point me to where my claims break down.
because for any structure we create, we add in boundaries they are defined on
first of all
thick isle
This doesn't make sense why would it stop working unless the circle wears down a...
@fleet knot
unreal shard
you seem really obsessed with figuring out where some structure breaks down, whoever created the structure can normally tell you that
nothing you are doing stands out as new or useful in any way
uncertainties will not make your structure ill defined unless they push you outside of the boundary it is defined on
thats probably enough for you to think about for a while now
and hopefully read some more textbooks
thick isle
and hopefully read some more textbooks
With that mindset you can never discover something different from usual way of doing things
He might be onto something try to understand or find loopholes
Debate with valid points
fleet knot
This doesn't make sense why would it stop working unless the circle wears down a...
That's kinda the difference. The circle itself doesn't change or wear down after use. But it's on how it's being used over and over again is what breaks things down. Now imagine that same drawing is used to cut another gear... and another... and each gear is used to trace the next one.
So if you start from a not-perfect drawing, and you reuse the last gear for the next, the error builds up. Eventually, the shape isn't even close to a circle anymore even if it started out "good" enough. It's not the deformation of the circle itself, but the structural deformation of reusing the circle itself.
thick isle
That's kinda the difference. The circle itself doesn't change or wear down after...
Yeah that makes sense
So now let's slowly drop the analogy
What is the machine and the circle here
And why is machine using the circle made from the previous one and not the orignal one
fleet knot
thats probably enough for you to think about for a while now
You're right that most mathematical structures come with boundaries and rules defined by their creators and you're also right that uncertainty alone doesn't invalidate structure if you're working fully inside these definitions
But my point is different:
I'm not asking where you expect the system to break. I'm asking if it still holds up when reused in ways that it wasn't originally designed for... especially layered systems like simulations, iterative models, even abstract logical feedback. So you're not wrong that the structure's creators defines its bounds.
But what I'm saying is:
“Let’s stress-test it not by pushing it outside, but by folding it in on itself and asking does the identity survive recursive reuse?”
If you think that’s already covered in math, I’d honestly love to know where to look, because I’ve been building this as a response to gaps I didn’t see covered.
If I’m wrong, I’d rather be corrected than ignored.
unreal shard
Quite a lot of maths is about generalising concepts to other situations
fleet knot
Yeah that makes sense
So now let's slowly drop the analogy
What is the machin...
The circle is any definition value or structure like sqrt(2), or a base-10 approximation like 0.333 for 1/3. The machine is any system that uses structure like an algorithm, equation, simulation, proof system, or feedback loop. The machine uses the last version instead of going back to the original because in most iterative systems (esp modeling), each step builds on the output of the last. That's how errors and distortions build, they feed themselves. If the structure isn't perfect then how long does it stay usable under reuse? And when does it start to literally break what's built on top of it?
clear mauve
What do you mean by "use" in the general sense?
fleet knot
By use, I mean any process that depends on a structure to produce another structure whether that's a number being plugged into a formula or a value being passed into a simulation or even a definition being referenced in a proof. Using a structure means you're applying it, feeding it into something else that expects it to behave a certain way.
clear mauve
So the "survival of the identity of a structure" (whatever that means) depends on the use you make of it?
fleet knot
Right. Exactly. The survival of a structure's identity depends on the context in which it's used because it's the context that determines how tightly that identity has to hold. Some uses are lenient like using 3.14 for π to estimate a circle’s area.. the system doesn’t fall apart. Other uses are strict like symbologic algebra where assuming 0.333 = 1/3 can lead to contradiction if you multiply and expect exact values.
So when I say Identity Survival, I mean does this structure keep behaving as intended under the stress of its actual use case? It’s about whether it holds together when you rely on it, not just naming it. Some identities are shallow and break quickly under recursion. Others are deep and remain coherent even when reused many times. That's what I mean by survival
clear mauve
So we come back to what's been said earlier. Your whole theory is just about estimating imprecisions.
fleet knot
That's the key difference I'm trying to show. I'm not just estimating imprecision. I'm testing literal structural coherence under reuse. Imprecision assumes you're measuring from a known, fixed reference. But does your reference itself hold up under reuse and transformation? This isn't only about how far you drift but whether that reference becomes self-invalidating under feedback.
clear mauve
I'd say most of the time, you don't define the "reference" by what it does; rather it's a consequence of its definition or some property that it holds. Therefore, you actually can assume it's going to "hold up".
Though most of what we are talking about is not defined properly
fleet knot
I'm not questioning the definition itself. I'm asking what happens when that defintion is used over and over again in systems that compose it back into itself. Like iterative models, feedback loops, or chains. If you define something like sqrt(2) as the number whose square is two, that's airtight. But when you represent, approximate, or rely on that identity recursively... the system you're building can still fail even if the object is "well-defined".
The reference should still be defined by what property/conditions it satisfies.. but does that satisfaction still persist through repeated use and distortion or does it collapse into contradiction or noise? If it does hold, great! The structure passes! If it doesn't, I'm not calling it wrong but I would call it structurally shallow in that context.
That's what I'm trying to define more rigorously even if my terminology still needs work..
How deep this structure goes is what I define as how coherent it is
clear mauve
I'm not questioning the definition itself. I'm asking what happens when that def...
I hate talking about undefined stuff, but I'll do it anyway. Representing an object doesn't change anything to its "identity". If a structure holds one transformation, It'll probably hold an "infinite" amount of recursion (by induction). So the only possibility left is an approximation. Which means goes back to what has been said earlier.
Anyway I gtg now
fleet knot
Totally fair. I appreciate you staying in the conversation, even with undefined terms in play. You're right that in formal systems, representation doesn't change identity and if a structure holds once, induction tells us it holds forever inside the rules of the system. But I'm not probing the math inside the system, but the fragility of the system's use outside its own assumptions... especially when implemented, approximated or in layered logic.
I think at the deepest level my framework does ask something approximation theory doesn't usually ask. Does the structure still behave like itself when its reused through imperfect processes or channels? That's the line I'm trying to draw. Identity isn't wrong but how it's handled can reveal where deeper failure begins.
fleet knot
Anyway I gtg now
But thank you. Thanks for pushing my clarity
maiden brook
I won't quit because some dude behind a computer said so
Mobile phone*
lean lodge
i agree with amy that this feels really different to what they were saying previously
like, currently the concept is that if someone tries to draw a circle based on their previous circle and they keep inaccurately duplicating it and adding error at each step, eventually it won't look like a circle
this is truly deep stuff
but now, we want to quantify this error? ok, invent statistics
and then we want to build all of math and physics on this? errrm
thick isle
The circle is any definition value or structure like sqrt(2), or a base-10 appro...
Let's take the machine as a function
I still don't get why and how the machine(function) is using the last output
thick isle
Let's take the machine as a function
I still don't get why and how the machine...
Wait mb I meant equation
As machine
fleet knot
i agree with amy that this feels really different to what they were saying previ...
Literally never changed my core question: when does a structure of quanta fail to measure the thing it’s trying to describe? From day one, I've viewed structure as something that has to hold itself together under its own transformations. I have consistently said I wasn't trying to redefine SI units and that i was inserting a discernability condition: no structure should be treated as valid unless it first proves that its identity doesn't collapse under recursion. I keep returning to contrast and collapse.
I have switched metaphors without framing it. I used "scalar" before really defining my E as contrast values over recursive identities. Words like "feedback" "recursive strain" "coherence" and "collapse" has always been consistent lol but I didn't ground them first in your framework. I jumped between approximation theory, entropy-information, modeling errors, mutability, bootstrap loops, and recursion but it kinda deals with a lot of that. None of them were contradictions.
fleet knot
__**Every transformation must pass this recursive filter or forfeit its claim to...
literally. I started the thread with this.
lean lodge
what if we say a proper class is a set
we apply the axioms to this class repeatedly
as if it’s a set
until we find a contradiction
and the number of applications of axioms we use is the duration before the approximation of a set by something that isn’t quite a set collapses?
is this what it means to test zfc?
fleet knot
Yeah! I'm not just applying the axioms to a weird object for fun. I'm literally asking what happens when we treat something as if it a structure (like a set, proper class or a meta structure or even an approximation) and run it recursively through ZFC operations? If that stand in structure survives repeated application of the axioms without contradiction, I'd say it survies the discernibility test for that layer...
But if at any point you get an ambigous membership like (x ∈ x) or no well-founded regress, then the structure fails... not because the ZFC is wrong but because the thing you're treating as a set no longer survives this filter under transformations.
RIght, so the number of steps before contradiction becomes a measure of structural depth or viability under that framework. I'm not proposing a new logic, but I am filtering existing ones because I want to find out which structures can survive this filter and to what extent. If they pass, they're structurally valid. If they don't (even if they're useful) they can't serve as foundations without risking literal contradiction.
The way that I'd write whole sets and not just numbers like 1/3 or 0.3333 is something closer to this. If S = Structure then...
Let:
S = {E_0, E_1, ..., E_n}
be a recursive chain of identity states where each E_(i+1) = f(E_i), and f is some transformation (application, measurement, logical derivation, approximation, etc.). This models your reuse chain. But E_i ∈ (0,1) must hold, or the structure collapses.
You now test survival by seeing whether the elements of S stay within the viable eidropic range and maintain η above threshold.
fleet knot
In my 1/e example, it is a structural resonance point because eta=1 there always. Unless I'm proven otherwise, I'd say it's the only known point of resistance, contrast, and directional response balance into a dynamically survivable loop ...
1/e is not an input really, because e is a value.. I was trying to identify the unique contrast state where the system becomes maximally recursive-resistant with minimal external corrections.
maiden brook
The terms ”resistance” is a purely physical term, you are using self made terms to define something non-sensical, “contrast” makes no sense either, give a numerical example (using actual numbers and not variables) and numerically define “resistance”, “contrast” eta etc. maybe then not everyone will view this framework as a complete joke, no offense.
fleet knot
Okay. Let me work on that. I'll make five examples. Give me a little time for that. Probably get a .txt file tomorrow or something.
median marsh
Imagine you're drawing a perfect circle on paper. You can never draw it *perfect...
This was perhaps the closest I’ve got to understand you, do more of these
maiden brook
This was perhaps the closest I’ve got to understand you, do more of these
Honestly still makes little sense, has OP heard of uncertainties?also a compass? And negligiblity? For all actual practical purposes, a circle drawn with a compass is “Perfect enough” where this new framework does nothing but convolute the idea of margin of error, still has no correlation to “ETA” between 0 and 1, it’s trying to overcomplicate a topic that has been extensively explored, and adds nothing to the discussion, except present a “Try not to get confused or frustrated by my lack of rigor” challenge. 😭😭😭
maiden brook
Okay. Let me work on that. I'll make five examples. Give me a little time for th...
You don’t need 5 examples in a .txt file, you should give 1 concrete example over text, that’s how one judges how valid/invalid a paper is
If asking you to give a numerical example means u have to make another document filled with gibberish, then it’s already bordering on the invalid side, regardless of how much you think your example makes sense. Do you think einstein would write an essay to explain $E=MC^{2}$ ?, no, he would give an example of a uranium atom undergoing fission, and how the post fission mass of the emitted neutron/nucleas is slightly less than the original atom, because 0.1% of the mass observably got converted into energy. Boom. No convoluted circular explanations. Hopefully you can follow suit one day
kindred siloBOT
RamDejin
median marsh
Honestly still makes little sense, has OP heard of uncertainties?also a compass?...
Sure, I’m just glad I finally got to understand something this guy says
maiden brook
Sure, I’m just glad I finally got to understand something this guy says
I envy thy
thick isle
This was perhaps the closest I’ve got to understand you, do more of these
I asked him to explain it at a highschool level let's hope he keeps this up
lean lodge
Yeah! I'm not just applying the axioms to a weird object for fun. I'm literally ...
in mainstream math, leading to a contradiction after any finite number of steps is enough to throw some statement out
so is your program basically the idea that if it takes more steps to reach that contradiction, the statement is "more valid"?
cuz previously you were saying that if a structure eventually collapses, it was never real in the first place
fleet knot
You don’t need 5 examples in a .txt file, you should give 1 concrete example ove...
Fair. I just think I'm doing five for personal ambition, but I will pick one that is the clearest and post here within the afternoon. I have some errands but I think you'll like my GPS example unless I write down a clearer one. And just for your preference. I should write the equation down and list the variables. But do you want me to plug and solve, or do you want me to show you each step?
fleet knot
so is your program basically the idea that if it takes more steps to reach that ...
A different analogy I thought was useful of why this is different from classical approximation theory is imagine if you're determining whether that block (system/structure) is valid within acceptable parameters to construct a building with. but I am testing when that building is going to collapse due to earthquakes, wear and tear, and other general deformations and transformations. So I'm not just asking whether this block good enough to build with, but given the block, what structures are valid and can survive events
So to answer your actual question, yes but with a caveat. It was in the context of a "theory of everything" at the time. I am that ambitious and I'll spend my life on it if I have to. If a structure eventually collapses, it was never real to begin with. If taken to the extreme, a “theory of everything” that passes all structural filters (meaning every assumption, operation, and object survives recursive collapse) then that theory is, by my definition at least, the most realest framework possible. Not because it explains the most, but because it survives being itself at all scales, under all deformations, without exception. I am not going to pretend to sit around and accept the huge discrepancies between theoretical physics because of a fine-tuning problem. We already know it's not a fine-tuning problem or simply error margins because there's a lack of convergence on the same data.
anyway gtg for now
unreal shard
I think i was really patient at first but this is just absolute crankery at this point
Im probably done with this thread lol
maiden brook
I think i was really patient at first but this is just absolute crankery at this...
And please @fleet knot do realize it is by no means a coincidence that literally everyone who tried engaging with you normally and politely feels the exact same way. There is nothing of substance here, i wish u the best in your other endeavors, as long as they are outside of the study of physics/mathematics
clear mauve
And please <@923788583263961109> do realize it is by no means a coincidence that...
Ok, I wouldn't go as far as saying "outside of the study of physics/mathematics", rather, I'd say study mathematics and only then try an elaborate some kind of new theory (bear in mind it takes years if not decades to the greatest minds to elaborate new theories). So I'll say the opposite: good luck studying mathematics.
By the way, If I were you @fleet knot , I'd study logic. That way you would understand all the reasons why your "theory" is not valid.
maiden brook
Yes, predicates and propositional logic would help you formulate your arguments too, before you realize the contradictions and it all breaks apart
lean lodge
By the way, If I were you <@923788583263961109> , I'd study logic. That way you...
it’s not like it’s logically invalid, moreso incoherent
communication is important
maiden brook
communication is important
But i feel like the point they were making was, under these assumptions of the system where a measurement or property “holds” vs “breaks down”, it would help to study propositional logic to learn how their framework is irrelevant to empirical measurements, given that the system will contradict these claims by being untrue
Being untrue empirically*
fleet knot
I was wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I have wasted your time and mine. I apologize.
I cannot compare existing frameworks. I have replaced them. I have been mulling over this but I am building an ontological filter. Not a mathematical or a physical filter. I am wasting my time arguing mathematics in your terms. There is no common ground to be had since I am iterating a new system. I cannot be legible in your terms, literally.
This is a meta-mathematical system design. So to argue mathematics is moot, since this is foundational logic, epistemology of mathematics, philosophy of physics, or a mix of any and all. My point is this: your criteria for when a formula is meaningful are incomplete or broken.
Why would you trust or believe me or engage with me? I'm not asking you to. Call me stupid or a crank. I don't care. However, this has helped me understand what a productive back-and-forth is and I have not been productive for any of you. I have been too focused on proving myself in your terms that I forgot what I had been doing in the first place.
I agree I need to be more coherent and precise. I agree that I need more training and mathematical knowledge and terminology. I agree that this was incoherent in your terms. It was never meant to be rooted in your terms or zft axioms.
Take care. Thanks for calling me out on where I was wrong. I'm sorry for arguing from a baseless position. I could not have synthesized existing frameworks or axioms or sets onto this one.
fleet knot
@lean lodge if you wouldnt mind archiving this? (i hope its ok to tag u)
last ferry
How convenient that you are specifically wrong about the part where we would have any ability to understand your idea or prove you wrong, instead of the part where you think your idea makes any sense.
fleet knot
Okay.
Einstein was laughed at
Tesla was forgotten
Mock me, it does nothing.
But yes. I cannot argue in your traditional training
last ferry
Tesla wasn't forgotten.
last ferry
Also, was Einstein laughed at?
fleet knot
but i am disillusioned that i could ever explain in traditional framing and godel's "internal consistency is good enough".
Yes in his earlier years
last ferry
Also also, clowns are also laughed at.
And there are more clowns than there are Einstein.
fleet knot
Mhm. Dont think I'm good at telling jokes unfortunately
It's a new physics engine. Not a lot of people are going to understand it anyway
Which is fine by me
I still need to do more work anyway
last ferry
It's a new physics engine. Not a lot of people are going to understand it anyway
No it's not.
fleet knot
❤️
to you, honey
you can't understand it
its okay
we dont always have to understand everything. life still goes on. cuddle your zfts
last ferry
You can't understand it either.
fleet knot
Actually I do
last ferry
Prove it.
fleet knot
and I can describe structural coherence
Okay. Lets take the first equation and pack it down bit by bit so you can see the engine parts okay?
These parts are new. They are not zfts
last ferry
...what the fuck are "zfts"?
fleet knot
zfc sorry. i havent ate in 24 hours and ive worked all day just now.
last ferry
Okay, but like. Then you can't even have an "equation".
You cannot use arithmetic or algebra if you're not using ZF, because arithmetic and algebra are defined in terms of ZF.
That was the whole point of ZFC.
fleet knot
Good. I actually wanted to close this discussion point so I can make a debate thread.
that focuses on zfc and why its incomplete
last ferry
...we know it's probably incomplete. We want it to be incomplete, because the alternative is inconsistent.
fleet knot
Well. ZFC is static. It is not dynamical. Sets shouldn't be the fundamental building blocks of mathematics. But I reject starting from sets, points, numbers, or topologies. I start from ontological filtering. I test whether a structure can persist before it qualifies as "something" to study. I'm replacing existence by axiom standards with existence by structural viability. You still can recover sets later down the line.
last ferry
What the fuck are you babbling about?
Sets shouldn't be the fundamental building blocks of mathematics.
Why the fuck not?
fleet knot
Because ZFCs exist timelessly and unquestionably. They're static and not dynamical. ZFCs deliberately avoids ontology and it doesn't care if sets or numbers describe the world.
Well, any structure used to describe reality must exist without assumption.
mathematical existence should be empirical, not just internally consistent.
last ferry
Name a "structure used to describe reality" that "exists without assumption".
unreal shard
so you disagree with the entire field of mathematics now because your theory doesnt work within it?
fleet knot
Again. More work to do. I have built up to only dimensionality. I have not even constructed a manifold. So if you want me to seriously and honestly answer that, then that's gonna take a while. I don't have all the mathematical skills and honestly is why i stopped at dimensionality
unreal shard
and you are going to rebuild the entire subject from scratch?
last ferry
Again. More work to do. I have built up to only dimensionality. I have not even ...
It sounds like "dimensions" qualify. So prove that "dimensions" exist.
fleet knot
and you are going to rebuild the entire subject from scratch?
Yeah. Well. I wasn't satisfied with the foundations of physics. Math that describes reality should be admissible under empirical ontological constraints and ZFC doesn't care about physical reality. It's just a formal logical scaffolding that may or may not be accurate. Not only should the math work, it should be real in a structural, physical sense. So yeah
I won't get validation from ZFC or classic math defenders ever. And I'm disillusioned with trying to.
last ferry
I won't get validation from ZFC or classic math defenders ever. And I'm disillus...
Because you're wrong.
fleet knot
I'm on my own unless some new common language comes along
I will be misunderstood, misread, and dismissed by most until I have the FULL framework, which I don't. I only have up to dimensionality.
And I have to prove that it explains existing phenomena better than QFT and GR
last ferry
"People who actually understand the topic I'm claiming to completely revolutionize keep telling me I'm wrong, so clearly I must be so much smarter than literally all of them that it's just impossible for them to understand me!"
pearl glen
what happened
last ferry
Get the fuck over yourself.
pearl glen
Get the fuck over yourself.
wow
i just got here
(sarcasm i know that probably wasn't towards me)
fleet knot
I am a crank to most, HSF. I proposed a new meta-mathematical system.
I may still be a crank
but I'd like to prove myself wrong first at least
pearl glen
I am a crank to most, HSF. I proposed a new meta-mathematical system.
oh cool
fleet knot
yeah