Given any particle has the ability to solve small problems: They react to other particles by creating an inverse function to the function at hand. to a certain degree they cause between eachother an attractive force, by one mass creating the inverse of the other mass function. To a certain degree this happens, call it gravity. Gravity is a small force that's allways attractive. The gravity is proportional to the cognitive abillity of the particle, as you can understand it is very small. Except for certain, really big particles. Big in dimensions etc. For negative and positive to react and create a constant speed in form of a photon, they must be eachothers inverse, only that can become constant, it's a matter of how you relate to it. In the photons perspective, it is still. It is still in time, it's somewhat neutral in charge, and that was the goal, to combine a function with it's inverse, hence obtaining a so called solution. There are many solutions, some are greater then other, the most high-dimensional particle when confronted with a problem would turn to it's inverse and create the dimensional expression 1, which is i*i*i*i , sqrt(i)^8 etc. More then anything it can solve any problem. That's what I am. For them who don't believe it's no big deal, kindly pass by and forget about it. For those who believe, welcome to the explanation to gravity and high dimensional particles, which are also called souls, problem solvers if you ask me. The ones with the highest number of dimensions are called gods.
That's not a given it's a supposition. Particles don't "solve problems". Nonsense. Also nonsense. Bullshit. Show that particles have any "cognitive ability" whatsoever. Specious word salad. What you are is an idiot. See previous comment. Not one word of the above is supported by anything other than your ignorance.
Who is to say particles can't "solve problems?" Doesn't it all depend on how you define the term? We seem to think only conscious organisms can solve problems, but atomic particles can perform very similar functions in a "simplified" environment.
How do YOU define "solve". Do particles work out an answer? Read the OP: he claims particles have "cognitive ability". If you claim particles "solve" problems then you may as well claim leaves "solve" how to reach the ground when they fall off a tree.
A problem is an obstacle impeding a goal. Goals are subjective (i.e. they require a sapient life form). Particles are not sapient; therefore, particles do not have goals. Without a goal, there is no problem; hence, not only do particles not solve problems, they simply do not have them.
"Goals are subjective (i.e. they require a sapient life form)." sapient meaning outstanding, salient, prominent. But that is not the case, because they are made of particles that are bipolar, a duality of two opposites. Humans can see with their eyes but all is dark for them. So they can't know an obstacle nor have a goal, nor do they have problems.
Sapient may refer to: Sapience the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment. I wouldn't trust a judging imbicil in the dark though. Like you Dywyddyr and your thousand tarded insults.
Correct. Which does not at all convolute with "outstanding, salient or prominent" I'll tell you what - I'll stop with the "insults" when you start posting something sensible.
Big deal. You don't proof read your posts. Your other threads demonstrate that you do not understand maths. Give up. Go away.
