Uggg, a TRIPLE negative.
I'm Leaving Now
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
- Status
Bells
Staff member
Huh?
Hadn't you already said goodbye and left?
So you lasted what? A day? Couple of hours?
I guess leaving with dignity never entered into your equations, huh?
Oh. Right. Triple, not double. Such a convoluted mess that the first negative slipped by in the final count.
Christ.
Sorry reiku, but I must not cease now that I've read this. You write worse than I do! If they do what they say you do, and keep your pencile packed in your backpack, or something, that's crazy. I've seen some of how you understand things though so I must admit you do have some empathy and compassion. But for christs sake, if you can't even understand how poorly worded that sentence was that nexus called a poorly constructed sentence? Then you serioiusly need to go study that. Crawl up in your ball, stick yourself in your backpack, and study it.
The irony and ignorance, never mind the hypocrisy.
Consider no book goes under publication before it has been reviewed for grammatical errors, so the arguements so far have been pointless. It's a matter of getting my point across. And my book WILL contain a guide to scientific concepts that will help the reader understand, never mind a ton of references.
Never mind, this abstract:
From Musings of a Physics Student, section D;
Did Consciousness cause the Big Bang?
''We tend to treat ourselves as being separate to the universe.
This line of thought is illogical because we inhabit bodies made
up of space, time, matter and energy... With this in mind, one
might even say, 'if we are made up of the stuff of the universe,
then we are somehow the universe itself.' We are then the wide
Cosmos observing Herself in all Her beautiful array of wonders.'
The opening conclusion might indeed seem strange, for how can consciousness cause the big bang? Before we answer this question (if it can at all be answered intuitively), consider the following quantum facts: You know, the universe has a nature which is mind-like. In fact, observation alone creates the thing being observed. If this is true, then we have a particular premise to make here. The universe is observer-dependant. The universe would be meaningless without an observer there, not only to define reality, but to create reality (1)
(1) There are many ways we can create the universe in quantum physics, from changing the statistical variables of a photons path, to possible resolutions defining the big bang.
In fact, we tend to ask, 'If the universe requires us to create it, how did the universe form a few chronons after big bang?'
The answer to this question seems very strange indeed. It turns out that the answer is that we are creating the early universe right now! Try not to dismiss such an idea, because we are being told by top physicists that this is exactly what we should be believing! If this is true, then the mixed state (1) of the universe just a moment after big bang is being determined today through our observations.
But to all of this i add a twist. Perhaps the universe arose in a mixed state, but only one of these states would be the most probable. But what caused this probability to peak above the rest? My answer is again, consciousness... I shall explain how this might be possible.
Vedantic belief is that only one mind ever existed. If this is true, then all minds must make up one single field of consciousness (2). Now, imagine this field of consciousness. Where does it exist? Does it arise from matter?
This last question might be misleading. Perhaps physicists shouldn't be asking whether mind arises from matter... But instead how matter arises from mind. Treating the mind/consciousness as a force that doesn't originate from matter, must lead one to believe it flows throughout the universe. In fact, this is exactly what i believe. Then, if this is true, how does mind inhabit these corporeal shells of materiality? What causes individuality?
For a while now, the theory of consciousness has come under some interesting developments, such as physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose's belief that gravity in mediation with microtubules (located in the brain as cells), causes consciousness. The use of gravity has revolutionized our ways of understanding the causes of consciousness.
Before this, the force thought to govern the senses was the electromagnetic force, pushing electrons to and fro our brains. All of this may still be true today, as we must consider the particles in our heads as determining the way we think and feel. Here i make a contention. What if electromagnetism snapped the unified field of consciousness?
Electrons follow Fermi-Dirac Statistics (3), meaning that all electrons inside of my head will cancel each other out in harmony. For instance, consider two electrons inside an atom. If one of these electrons has a spin up, the other must have a spin down, that is unless one of these electrons are in a lower state of energy. Likewise, an electron cannot fall into a lower state of energy unless its spin is in an opposite direction. All fermion particles must cancel each other out in this manor, or they would fall back into the vacuum from whence they came. Though, just think about it. What if this cancellation causes individuality inherent in every human being? What if the electromagnetic forces at work causes the illusion of independence?
(3) – It, I feel is important to incorporate electromagnetic fields as a possible solution to ‘’snapping’’ the unified mind. It might just be, that the same electromagnetic influences proposed to give rise to consciousness inside the brain, is analogous to the universal mind being separated into individual beings.
And, how did we exist before we became independent?
Well you might think, independence comes to us, possibly in the womb, when those electrical signals shatter the great sea unto which we all came from. But from a relativistic outlook, we have all separated simultaneously, even if we are born at different times, months or years.
But before we became independent, we must have existed without independent thought, and it is because of this, we cannot remember our existences, before we became entrapped within our mortal coils. The sea of thought, dreams and hopes, the sea which made up one single mind, can only be interpreted in light of a God, or perhaps Plato’s World of Idea’s, Roger Penrose reminds us.
Dr. Fred A. Wolf, a leading pioneer in the field of consciousness also ascribes this force as the Mind of God. Only, i am not sure whether he ascribes this God as having independent thought.
I believe it does; but God cannot have independent thought anymore, that is until we return to our source, and activate The Great One all over again - of course, this depends on what you choose to believe. Though we will all return to our source through death one day, whether it be millions of years into the future - maybe even billions, and combine back into that one single mind.
Now, the zero-point energy field (also called the false vacuum) plays a big part in our conscious states today; as the theory goes. The effects of the zero-point energy field on matter was found by Paul Dirac, in his mathematical analysis of the electron in 1928. Binding relativity and quantum mechanics together, he found that the electron moved at lightspeed following a zig-zagged path through space, causing the illusion that electrons moved much slower. It turned out that the zero-point energy field was filled with potential negative spinning particles which buffeted the electron about, causing it to move in a zig-zagged path through space.
Now, Dr. Shiuji Inomata at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry Electrotechnical Laboratory in Japan believes that thoughts and feelings arise from the zero-point energy field, just as it is responsible for the appearance of matter. And here i make a contention. Perhaps emotions and thoughts are constantly being bombarded as well by the negative energy of the vacuum, just as it affects a tiny electron on its path through space and time. This may seem strange, since thought's and feelings are ethereal... but one must see this in light of the ethereal nature of the false vacuum; and if thoughts arise from this vacuum, then perhaps there are still correlations occurring, just as found with an electron being influenced by a negative particle in the false vacuum.
If consciousness does not arise from matter, for me it must have arisen at the big bang, from the opening where the false energy spewed forth. Consciousness must have flooded spacetime with information just as the big bang was occurring - because it was at this point a big crunch was also occurring.
Thus, consciousness came from the future and also came from the past (1), defining the reality that was chosen today. In fact, consciousness, if we treat it as an energy that streams from big bang, may have even caused the big bang to happen; there is no grander picture than to say the universe expanded solely for us. Indeed, if that is too hard to believe, just imagine that the one particular state of spacetime chosen, was in fact influenced by consciousness, so it could inhabit material bodies - simply so that we could exist. Moreover, if consciousness chose the conditions today for us to exist in, then we might answer the question to why our universe had such a low state of entropy in the beginning, allowing us today to determine a past and future, sandwiching the present time. Fantasy? Maybe. But life is a bit of a fantasy anyway.
(1) – even though this may seem highly philosophical, for any type of story, there must be an end, and with that into account, relativity does say that everything is somehow predetermined: And with this in mind, then if consciousness existed in some type of substate totally imaginal, then it must stream from big bang itself.(2)
(2) – in fact, the Late Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle also believed that signals of some kind of intelligence where coming from the past, and this is akin to my theory of consciousness flowing in from both Alpha and Omega, and they somehow ‘’agree’’ in the present.
Let's examine this fantasy of spacetime. 15,000 million years ago, spacetime suddenly appeared. In the standard model of cosmology (the big bang), this happened for no reason at all. And stranger still, is that absolutely nothing existed before this point! How can this be? Today, the world we see around us, is [believed] to be something; and if this world is something, existence before the big bang must be the opposite of something - which is of course absolutely nothing. But how can something arise from nothing?
I've asked this question many times, and I’ve answered such a question by saying that this nothingness was actually everything needed to create the universe today. And if existence before the big bang indicated everything needed, then this must indicate that reality today would need to be the opposite of everything - and that is nothing... In fact, the world we are living in is a bit of an illusion mathematically. If you add up all the energy in the universe, you have absolutely nothing.
All of matter and energy in existence all comes to the big goose egg. That old proverb, 'life is but a dream,' may indeed be more than just a metaphor. Look at it this way. When the universe reaches the value of Ω the omega point - and when everything is finally dragged back into the gravitational singularity whence everything came, it will be as if we never existed at all; would it do us good now to say we ever did?
It’s pointless to assume a theory of physics, without philosophy or metaphysics. If we do, then there are area’s of physics which cannot be speculated on, or progressed on without the thoughts of philosophy and metaphysics, sciences unto their own.
The long-age questions that baffle cosmology, may be the very questions that help solve the mysteries of quantum mechanics.
Reflections on a Self-Aware Universe
So, not only is physics useless without the science of philosophy and metaphysics, but the philosophizing itself seems to be asking genuine questions concerning how something alive comes from something of which can only be classed as ‘’dead’’.
But we surely know the universe is not dead, and does contain organisms, from prokaryotes, to the more extreme conscious eukaryotes, like ourselves. As I have mused before, we are complex machines, operating through simpler averages; it’s only when we begin to calculate all these averages, do we see some complexity within the fundamental elements that make us.
This body of mine, is mostly made up of spacetime, and in effect, is just spacetime (1), because according to relativity, the energy and matter we are compose of are nothing but fluctuations in its fabric: distortions or creases in the fabric of time and space. So, if those who claim consciousness is a phenom of material operations, we actually somehow come out of the spacetime fabric itself.
(1) – This is analogous to when Einstein showed there really wasn’t anything like matter, but in fact, all matter was just trapped forms of energy. But as you will soon see, it also reduces further to just ‘’spacetime’’.
This would suggest that perhaps the fabric has an intelligence, which intentionally gave rise to the statistical properties for it to contain life. This would answer why the universe gave itself so much time to expand, so that eventually, organisms like our selves would permit its own existence! These idea’s are obviously akin or extremely similar to the Strong Anthropic Principle.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And that is the excerpt. (But is filled with math as well, to make it more scientific than just philosophy.)
And now, this thread has exhausted all it has, and i promised that i would finally leave, when this thread is now dead, and i feel it is, essentially.
Consider no book goes under publication before it has been reviewed for grammatical errors, so the arguements so far have been pointless. It's a matter of getting my point across. And my book WILL contain a guide to scientific concepts that will help the reader understand, never mind a ton of references.
Never mind, this abstract:
From Musings of a Physics Student, section D;
Did Consciousness cause the Big Bang?
''We tend to treat ourselves as being separate to the universe.
This line of thought is illogical because we inhabit bodies made
up of space, time, matter and energy... With this in mind, one
might even say, 'if we are made up of the stuff of the universe,
then we are somehow the universe itself.' We are then the wide
Cosmos observing Herself in all Her beautiful array of wonders.'
The opening conclusion might indeed seem strange, for how can consciousness cause the big bang? Before we answer this question (if it can at all be answered intuitively), consider the following quantum facts: You know, the universe has a nature which is mind-like. In fact, observation alone creates the thing being observed. If this is true, then we have a particular premise to make here. The universe is observer-dependant. The universe would be meaningless without an observer there, not only to define reality, but to create reality (1)
(1) There are many ways we can create the universe in quantum physics, from changing the statistical variables of a photons path, to possible resolutions defining the big bang.
In fact, we tend to ask, 'If the universe requires us to create it, how did the universe form a few chronons after big bang?'
The answer to this question seems very strange indeed. It turns out that the answer is that we are creating the early universe right now! Try not to dismiss such an idea, because we are being told by top physicists that this is exactly what we should be believing! If this is true, then the mixed state (1) of the universe just a moment after big bang is being determined today through our observations.
But to all of this i add a twist. Perhaps the universe arose in a mixed state, but only one of these states would be the most probable. But what caused this probability to peak above the rest? My answer is again, consciousness... I shall explain how this might be possible.
Vedantic belief is that only one mind ever existed. If this is true, then all minds must make up one single field of consciousness (2). Now, imagine this field of consciousness. Where does it exist? Does it arise from matter?
This last question might be misleading. Perhaps physicists shouldn't be asking whether mind arises from matter... But instead how matter arises from mind. Treating the mind/consciousness as a force that doesn't originate from matter, must lead one to believe it flows throughout the universe. In fact, this is exactly what i believe. Then, if this is true, how does mind inhabit these corporeal shells of materiality? What causes individuality?
For a while now, the theory of consciousness has come under some interesting developments, such as physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose's belief that gravity in mediation with microtubules (located in the brain as cells), causes consciousness. The use of gravity has revolutionized our ways of understanding the causes of consciousness.
Before this, the force thought to govern the senses was the electromagnetic force, pushing electrons to and fro our brains. All of this may still be true today, as we must consider the particles in our heads as determining the way we think and feel. Here i make a contention. What if electromagnetism snapped the unified field of consciousness?
Electrons follow Fermi-Dirac Statistics (3), meaning that all electrons inside of my head will cancel each other out in harmony. For instance, consider two electrons inside an atom. If one of these electrons has a spin up, the other must have a spin down, that is unless one of these electrons are in a lower state of energy. Likewise, an electron cannot fall into a lower state of energy unless its spin is in an opposite direction. All fermion particles must cancel each other out in this manor, or they would fall back into the vacuum from whence they came. Though, just think about it. What if this cancellation causes individuality inherent in every human being? What if the electromagnetic forces at work causes the illusion of independence?
(3) – It, I feel is important to incorporate electromagnetic fields as a possible solution to ‘’snapping’’ the unified mind. It might just be, that the same electromagnetic influences proposed to give rise to consciousness inside the brain, is analogous to the universal mind being separated into individual beings.
And, how did we exist before we became independent?
Well you might think, independence comes to us, possibly in the womb, when those electrical signals shatter the great sea unto which we all came from. But from a relativistic outlook, we have all separated simultaneously, even if we are born at different times, months or years.
But before we became independent, we must have existed without independent thought, and it is because of this, we cannot remember our existences, before we became entrapped within our mortal coils. The sea of thought, dreams and hopes, the sea which made up one single mind, can only be interpreted in light of a God, or perhaps Plato’s World of Idea’s, Roger Penrose reminds us.
Dr. Fred A. Wolf, a leading pioneer in the field of consciousness also ascribes this force as the Mind of God. Only, i am not sure whether he ascribes this God as having independent thought.
I believe it does; but God cannot have independent thought anymore, that is until we return to our source, and activate The Great One all over again - of course, this depends on what you choose to believe. Though we will all return to our source through death one day, whether it be millions of years into the future - maybe even billions, and combine back into that one single mind.
Now, the zero-point energy field (also called the false vacuum) plays a big part in our conscious states today; as the theory goes. The effects of the zero-point energy field on matter was found by Paul Dirac, in his mathematical analysis of the electron in 1928. Binding relativity and quantum mechanics together, he found that the electron moved at lightspeed following a zig-zagged path through space, causing the illusion that electrons moved much slower. It turned out that the zero-point energy field was filled with potential negative spinning particles which buffeted the electron about, causing it to move in a zig-zagged path through space.
Now, Dr. Shiuji Inomata at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry Electrotechnical Laboratory in Japan believes that thoughts and feelings arise from the zero-point energy field, just as it is responsible for the appearance of matter. And here i make a contention. Perhaps emotions and thoughts are constantly being bombarded as well by the negative energy of the vacuum, just as it affects a tiny electron on its path through space and time. This may seem strange, since thought's and feelings are ethereal... but one must see this in light of the ethereal nature of the false vacuum; and if thoughts arise from this vacuum, then perhaps there are still correlations occurring, just as found with an electron being influenced by a negative particle in the false vacuum.
If consciousness does not arise from matter, for me it must have arisen at the big bang, from the opening where the false energy spewed forth. Consciousness must have flooded spacetime with information just as the big bang was occurring - because it was at this point a big crunch was also occurring.
Thus, consciousness came from the future and also came from the past (1), defining the reality that was chosen today. In fact, consciousness, if we treat it as an energy that streams from big bang, may have even caused the big bang to happen; there is no grander picture than to say the universe expanded solely for us. Indeed, if that is too hard to believe, just imagine that the one particular state of spacetime chosen, was in fact influenced by consciousness, so it could inhabit material bodies - simply so that we could exist. Moreover, if consciousness chose the conditions today for us to exist in, then we might answer the question to why our universe had such a low state of entropy in the beginning, allowing us today to determine a past and future, sandwiching the present time. Fantasy? Maybe. But life is a bit of a fantasy anyway.
(1) – even though this may seem highly philosophical, for any type of story, there must be an end, and with that into account, relativity does say that everything is somehow predetermined: And with this in mind, then if consciousness existed in some type of substate totally imaginal, then it must stream from big bang itself.(2)
(2) – in fact, the Late Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle also believed that signals of some kind of intelligence where coming from the past, and this is akin to my theory of consciousness flowing in from both Alpha and Omega, and they somehow ‘’agree’’ in the present.
Let's examine this fantasy of spacetime. 15,000 million years ago, spacetime suddenly appeared. In the standard model of cosmology (the big bang), this happened for no reason at all. And stranger still, is that absolutely nothing existed before this point! How can this be? Today, the world we see around us, is [believed] to be something; and if this world is something, existence before the big bang must be the opposite of something - which is of course absolutely nothing. But how can something arise from nothing?
I've asked this question many times, and I’ve answered such a question by saying that this nothingness was actually everything needed to create the universe today. And if existence before the big bang indicated everything needed, then this must indicate that reality today would need to be the opposite of everything - and that is nothing... In fact, the world we are living in is a bit of an illusion mathematically. If you add up all the energy in the universe, you have absolutely nothing.
All of matter and energy in existence all comes to the big goose egg. That old proverb, 'life is but a dream,' may indeed be more than just a metaphor. Look at it this way. When the universe reaches the value of Ω the omega point - and when everything is finally dragged back into the gravitational singularity whence everything came, it will be as if we never existed at all; would it do us good now to say we ever did?
It’s pointless to assume a theory of physics, without philosophy or metaphysics. If we do, then there are area’s of physics which cannot be speculated on, or progressed on without the thoughts of philosophy and metaphysics, sciences unto their own.
The long-age questions that baffle cosmology, may be the very questions that help solve the mysteries of quantum mechanics.
Reflections on a Self-Aware Universe
So, not only is physics useless without the science of philosophy and metaphysics, but the philosophizing itself seems to be asking genuine questions concerning how something alive comes from something of which can only be classed as ‘’dead’’.
But we surely know the universe is not dead, and does contain organisms, from prokaryotes, to the more extreme conscious eukaryotes, like ourselves. As I have mused before, we are complex machines, operating through simpler averages; it’s only when we begin to calculate all these averages, do we see some complexity within the fundamental elements that make us.
This body of mine, is mostly made up of spacetime, and in effect, is just spacetime (1), because according to relativity, the energy and matter we are compose of are nothing but fluctuations in its fabric: distortions or creases in the fabric of time and space. So, if those who claim consciousness is a phenom of material operations, we actually somehow come out of the spacetime fabric itself.
(1) – This is analogous to when Einstein showed there really wasn’t anything like matter, but in fact, all matter was just trapped forms of energy. But as you will soon see, it also reduces further to just ‘’spacetime’’.
This would suggest that perhaps the fabric has an intelligence, which intentionally gave rise to the statistical properties for it to contain life. This would answer why the universe gave itself so much time to expand, so that eventually, organisms like our selves would permit its own existence! These idea’s are obviously akin or extremely similar to the Strong Anthropic Principle.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And that is the excerpt. (But is filled with math as well, to make it more scientific than just philosophy.)
And now, this thread has exhausted all it has, and i promised that i would finally leave, when this thread is now dead, and i feel it is, essentially.
Jesus christ man leave already!
if by slap in my face you mean ill be nicely suprised then yes.
Well, the writing isn't altogether as horrible as your usual shlock. Did you have someone else edit it or are you actually capable of writing semi-coherently at times?
Anyway, the contents are still riddled with the same pseudo-babble. Regurgitated half(quarter? sixteenth?) understood concepts mixed together haphazardly.
I find it funny that a 'physics student' (one still studying what appears to be high school physics) would 'muse' on such high level concepts, but whatever.
Of course, writing pseudoscience is not a surefire recipe to failure. In fact, the masses tend to love pseudoscience. So, perhaps you'll be a roaring success. A new age guru.
Of course, as Alphanumeric has stated, you'll only be catering to the ignorant. But, if it makes you feel good, then no skin off my nose.
Anyway, the contents are still riddled with the same pseudo-babble. Regurgitated half(quarter? sixteenth?) understood concepts mixed together haphazardly.
I find it funny that a 'physics student' (one still studying what appears to be high school physics) would 'muse' on such high level concepts, but whatever.
Of course, writing pseudoscience is not a surefire recipe to failure. In fact, the masses tend to love pseudoscience. So, perhaps you'll be a roaring success. A new age guru.
Of course, as Alphanumeric has stated, you'll only be catering to the ignorant. But, if it makes you feel good, then no skin off my nose.
Except that we should feel some pity for the poor idiot that reads it - after finishing, he'll be even MORE of an idiot...
Yes. But I care about as much for that idiot as I care for Reiku. That being not at all.
I'm a real bastard, I suppose.
I cater to the interested. That includes scientists... and trust me... many follow my belief structure.
And no, its all my work, i made that point clear.
And thirdly, more riddled??? Tell me, how can that be a logical satisfactory conclusion when you haven't read the entire documentation???
meh
And [please]/// i know physics beyond school level.
Anyone who claims that i do, are ignorant of the knowledge i come to present. Also, as i have expressed, there was math i showed tha was well beyond school level knowledge, and Alphanumeric, after insideously asking me to show them, refused to answer... why... i wonder...
Anyone who claims that i do, are ignorant of the knowledge i come to present. Also, as i have expressed, there was math i showed tha was well beyond school level knowledge, and Alphanumeric, after insideously asking me to show them, refused to answer... why... i wonder...
It's usual for a third party to edit an author's work.
I read what you presented.
Actually, that was the thread which pretty much shows the level of physics you're studying. Pretty remedial stuff. Certainly not the level of physics which would give you the least underpinning to 'muse' effectively on such high level concepts as you seem to enjoy.
I mean, you can muse all you want as a layman and a pseudo, but not as a physics student as you are not up to the level of studying these concepts yet.
Your title is therefore misleading, yes?
By the way, what the hell is up with your use of brackets and forward slashes? I've never seen it anywhere but in your writing.
You use brackets for emphasis, I take it? The usual use of brackets in writing is to insert missing words into quoted text to aid in understanding.
Your use of forward slashes is a complete mystery.
You use brackets for emphasis, I take it? The usual use of brackets in writing is to insert missing words into quoted text to aid in understanding.
Your use of forward slashes is a complete mystery.
Rieku said:
Yours is lived almost entirely in fantasy.
Last edited:
I must admit, I tried to read the paper, and it looks bogus to me, which won't be a surprise to you. I really don't think you're making proper use of the symbols and actual concepts from math and physics. You need to fix your notation if you want to make mathematical arguments, make it consistent and corresponding to the standard conventions mathematicians are used to; otherwise it just looks like gibberish, whether or not it contains any valid points. And just so you know, cramming a paper full of math doesn't do anything to make it more scientific. If you're going to put math in a paper, then that math has to actually correspond to something important, and it has to be self-consistent.
Incidentally, I'm very curious; have you submitted your math to Prof. Wolf, seeing as you cite him so frequently? Did he bother to read your paper, did he understand any of it? If so, what did he say about it?
Incidentally, I'm very curious; have you submitted your math to Prof. Wolf, seeing as you cite him so frequently? Did he bother to read your paper, did he understand any of it? If so, what did he say about it?
Well guess what... it's not entirely bogus. Talking with a physicist, i have found that he agrees, by estimation, 50% OF THE context. In other words, only slight differences on materialism and God, are in suspect.
CPT, i hoped more of you.
ps. Wolf won't entertain the math, because it is too time-consuming. He will postulate metaphysically, since it takes rather arbitrary conditions.
CPT, i hoped more of you.
ps. Wolf won't entertain the math, because it is too time-consuming. He will postulate metaphysically, since it takes rather arbitrary conditions.
''And just so you know, cramming a paper full of math doesn't do anything to make it more scientific. If you're going to put math in a paper, then that math has to actually correspond to something important, and it has to be self-consistent.''
How would you know, if you haven't observed the whole?
How would you know, if you haven't observed the whole?
- Status