I really like Max Tegmark, his optimism is contagious.

@jwallace6913

Жыл бұрын

and authenticity

Wow! An equation to describe human conscious. It's out there for us to discover ultimately "Closer to Truth".

I'm totally amazed at the speed and depth of knowledge humans have reached. It's weird in fact. It's almost freaky because this knowledge cannot be about survival per se. What is the purpose of knowing what the universe was like less than a second after the Big Bang? Why are we let in into such a ' secret'? It has to have a purpose other than being alive. Maybe we'll find out our cosmic purpose in the future?

@jareknowak8712

2 жыл бұрын

In my opinion, the desire to have knowledge has an evolutionary basis, because knowledge is an advantage, and an advantage gives a better chance of survival. We probably do not yet realize how we will be able to use the future knowledge. But we already feel, "genetically", that it will be useful to us.

@catherinemoore9534

2 жыл бұрын

@@jareknowak8712 Tegmark himself has doubts about the usefulness of this knowledge. He's persuing it for the sake of it, out of personal curiosity and satisfaction. He says that this satisfaction may be the motivation for its ultimate purpose. So humans would have an ultimate purpose in getting pure knowledge, a kind of spiritual journey that would unravel the mystery of the universe...

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

Truth is fundamental to nature, therefore a basic necessity of life. We threaten our own existence when we ‘believe’ in things that do not exist but still try to live as though they do.. We can no longer exist without truth than we can without oxygen.. Truth is simply the ‘oxygen’ of existence.. spaceandmotion

@vhawk1951kl

Жыл бұрын

Which humans have" reached " - >>"he speed and depth of knowledge"? Can you *"Know"* what others(some fantasy "humans") "know"-or you *imagine they" know"? What do you mean by know? Define *Know* with out reference to cognates and synonyms, circularity and descriptions. What *exactly are you doing when you "know" whatever you mean by 'know' and you have no idea? Cn you "know" what I know"? What exactly is Knowledge if that be(what would you say?) the result of whatever you do when you know(and you have not and cannot save the faintest idea)? Define either knowledge or know-without resort to cognates and synonyms, circularity and descriptions Is it not true to say that words are like veils and those that use them frequently have no idea of what is is or may be that lies behind the veil of that word. Do you not just*assume* that you have some idea what*Exact* notion the word "know" carries for you, and that it carries *No*exact notion for you? What would be an example of knowing or call it what you will-knowledge or whatever? In English to know is what is called a verb is it not?-Verbs are so-called *Doing* words If you agree that know is a verb or doing word, what*exactly do you suppose yourself to be doing when and if you*"Know"* It turns out that you have absolutely no idea does it not? Apparently you suppose that some imaginary others that you call humans ' know but not you yourself, is that correct? What sort of process or action enables you to know what those imaginary others know? *Can*you "know" what they know, or even what-if anything, you know? Is know relative-more or less; are there degrees of "know"?-or is it an absolute term? Can or do you know whatever you mean by know?

I agree with Max Tegmark. The univers evolves from simple to complex, and mind is probably the most complex that exists, while math is basic.

consciousness is everything, everything is consciousness.

@cibriis1710

Жыл бұрын

Or everything arises out of consciousness

With regard to the opening "paradox", it's just the same issue as with Anselm's ontological proof: you need to have consistent definitions/sets of properties (and not let them morph during the argument or between folks discussing/debating it) and then the answer is pretty clear and simple - although you might get different answers depending on the definitions you pick, for any given set of definitions, you get a straightforward, consistent (there are no contradictions) answer.

Anything about Arithmetics, which I'm soon going into for a better understanding. One isn't a number but the principle, the radii; whereas in math it is a number. Mathematics seems to be local only to material in multiplicity rather than being part of the cause of multiplicity. Because what mathematical properties does Soul, form, space, beauty, goodness, unity, order, harmony, divinity, light, consciousness have that's measurable? I'm reading Plato right now and it is great. Math isn't really based on anything concrete, the measurement takes place where ever one chooses. What's large has largeness in it, what's small has smallness in it; what's large is known from what's small, and what's small is known from what's large. But what's seemingly small may become large when in comparison to something smaller, therefor it is not properly 'small' -- and this is math, it's a theory. It's not concrete, but is useful. The Ancients were about Arithmetics so I'm going to check that out, rather than math, as it doesn't start with the Principle but a made up starting point of not concrete.

Brilliant!! Now let's figure this out!?!? Heha, I'm not sure we need too. But who am I to say. With the answer than what, there's always next!! Brilliant!! Keep doing what u doin!!

Each tools 🛠 will gives us better understanding, and providing us with more informations, but, combinations of the science, of course gives us fully understanding of everything, as we’re all related together!!

When was this filmed? Would be great to get dates of recordings posted on these videos

@godbernaz2847

2 жыл бұрын

This is actualy a repload, I've seen this episode once probably year ago, maybe they didnt had anyone to interview im not sure what happened.

@jareknowak8712

2 жыл бұрын

This one is from 2010.

Can we use fractals to better understand turbulence? Would seem to make sense.

Nice 🤞

where the heck is the axiomatic sense of causality in mathematics? Mathematics requires logical ordering which implies a pre existing temporal basis of sorts. If is no temporal substrate to order mathematical constructs, then coherent mathematical logic ceases to be a thing. Similarly mathematics requires a space for information to be embedded. Axiomatically what aspect of mathematics generates space ex nihilo for mathematic entities to exist and interrelate? Some one show me how math's can be a thing prior to some sense of information and temporal ordering.

Max is so interesting....smart guy!

@kipponi

2 жыл бұрын

One of the best physicists. Big thinker.

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

He is so nice because his speculation not show up honest phisc concept. He is cinism liars .

Eyh some1 can explain me why this episode got repload? This is actualy an episode which already has been uploaded before!

Language is recognising “who”. Mathematics is reasoning “how”.

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong honest question in Science are Wry?

the theory of everything everything is not the end of the road what do you do then ?

Optimism - existence is perfection. Vitalism - existence is perception.

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Giberish rambling. Foi.

gravity and electromagnetism both work at so-called fundamental level, very likely they work together but different "not connected directly not similar to the way both electricity and magnetism manifest each other".

I wonder we say the universe will expand forever while that may be but the question is why were we hear in the first place ?😐 if we are just going to die forever you might as say the earth would not have ever formed in the first place 😑it also does not make since how would we know earth would ever form in the first place ?😐 also how do we know the beginning of the universe if we can’t confirm it 😐and what about the end? it does not make since 😓

This is from 10 years ago

The world of mind IS the world of mathematics and that world created the world of matter. Mind, Light, mathematics, Waves, all refer to the same thing. And this thing is what philosophy calls Noumena that caused all phenomena in the natural world. It exists outside space/time in the singularity but it interacts with space time. How can scientists say there’s no underlying reality? Can a structure without a foundation stand? No one doubts that a 100 feet skyscraper has a foundation, even though they can’t see it. Reason and logic suggests that it MUST have a foundation otherwise it won’t even stand in the first place.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

Realty is the thing in itself. I do not think there can be an underlining reality.

@danielogwara3984

2 жыл бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 in the way they use the word reality in this context is referring to the physical world. And so the question is what is the underlying reality of the physical world if any.

Yes, asking big questions is good. Congratulations.

I don’t really understand why it’s literally thought that math creates matter (or energy). What does that mean - creates? If math creates matter, then every time we write an equation, something must happen along that line, but it doesn’t. I don’t believe that math creates anything, that “reality” just works in a way that can be described by math. Some think that the universe is a giant computer, but computers don’t creat anything either.

the only things that really exist in the sense the host is talking about it is fields, and then after that math is the programming language of the sim. so math is ultimately the creator just like c++ is the creator of a program

To me, Math is a dimension itself, which happens to support our views and the physical world that we live in. By using the math that we have actually developed, it means we are using self-limited equations--in other words, the math we have developed is NOT usable in seeing other dimensions beyond our comprehension, or is ever going to be relative to dimensions beyond our current physical world, such as in understanding a so called multiverse, which we can NEVER proven or have the time and energy to see, or make experiments upon. We are now so far past real math in our discussions, that we are trying to determine all cosmological problems using "theoretical math".. By using theory in math, this comversation could go on eternally and never be solved. At some point you have to decide what you believe in and just go with it.

That which asks all questions is the same THAT which answers all questions. - Wald Wassermann

I have trouble seeing how math, can describe biology, and evolution. What would be the equations for this? Not everything is amenable to such simple, concise descriptions. Other people (e.g., Joscha Bach, Wolfram?) have proposed "computation" as being fundamental. You have a few foundational rules, e.g. Turing machine. For from such rules, a plethora of possibilities, that's not self evident from the initial rules. (The Turing machine, is just one example, of a rule set.) The problem becomes more profound, when one adds stochasticity, and emergence to the mix. It is possible even "computation" is too limited, too mechanical. Despite the advances in molecular biology, we still don't understand the process of life, of self assembly, emergence, very well. Life, even as dependent on prior mechanical substrates, seems qualitatively different. Hence, processes such as constructor theory, assembly theory, maybe the next frontier, as science pushes through simpler systems, to more complex ones. More specifically, probing the nature of the transition of abiotic systems to biotic ones (e.g., abiogenesis in. the field of astrobiology).

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

You don't understand ... because you believe in complete nonsense. Only an intelligence( like Man) ... makes, maintains, improves or EVOLVES, & fine tunes ... abstract & Physical FUNCTIONS. A Function ... PROCESSES inputs into outputs ... has set purpose, properties, form & design ... and requires specific matter, energy, space, time & Laws of Nature .. to exist & to FUNCTION. Everything in the Universe is an abstract ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or physical (matter, energy) Function ... unnaturally made by an intelligence. Science ( a function) completely relies on the Laws of Nature( functions) for Man ( a function) to explain natural phenomena ( functions). Law, mathematics, & the scientific method are abstract Functions from the mind of an intelligence. elemental particles, atoms, elements, compounds, molecules physical Functions. Chemical & nuclear reactions ... are physical Functions. Machines & the Human Body .. are physical Functions composed entirely of Functions ... and are made by an intelligence. You don't understand, because you believe in nonsense that has nature & natural processes over billions of years making, maintaining, EVOLVING & fine tuning ... Abstract & Physical Functions. You numbnuts know for a fact ... that Nature & natural processes will never make & operate the simplest mechanical machine like a wheel, lever, wedge, hammer, nail, screw, driver, etc. You know a complex Machine is a physical FUNCTION composed of physical Functions. You know only an intelligence makes Functions. And you know that the three types of physical machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE). And even with these facts, you believe in Abiogenesis about 4 billions years ago, and the Evolution of Life from a common ancestor by natural selection & mutation. See. Nonsense. Mathematics is a Function ... that describes, predicts or determine ... natural or unnatural phenomena (Functions) Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, improves, & refines ... abstract & physical Functions. Everything makes sense ... when everything is a Function.

@jettmthebluedragon

2 жыл бұрын

I agree 😐after all we are just one planet in the cosmos how would we ever know earth would ever form in the first place 😐? if death was forever then why are we living right now?😐we might as well not have formed in the first place 😑it also does not explain why we were born in specific points 😐

Why generating, with the one you get acces to the other. All exist, non generates the other, without one you can't have the other.

Old or new video? Please add info!

@r2c3

2 жыл бұрын

there must be a good reason it's not included...that's another CTT Big question :)

If you give people the most plausible and necessary answers to their questions they reject them! This tells us that they do not actually want an answer, but what they are REALLY looking for are arguments to justify carrying on with whatever they already believe.. If you try to fight the most plausible and necessary answer, you can only do so with LESS plausible and UNnecessary ideas.. And DO think about this as though your life depended upon it, because it absolutely does!

I wonder how these beliefs would change if you began with the presumption that we ‘exist’ in a dreamed-up Universe, that functions somewhat like a simulation; we are the conscious imaginings of our Creator.

Yes, but where is Platonic math? For everyday life, math is either in a book, on a chalkboard, in a computer as a "numeric representation," or in a brain as a "mental representation." How does this math instantiate itself in the real, tangible world? How does math actually construct rather than just model reality? All I can come up with is this is really just algorithms running on some universe-generating machine, i.e., the idea that this is a "turtles all the way down" projection of something using some aparatus.

Im asking u again. Please make a patreon / donation box. I will donate. This is an amazing channel

@johnyharris

2 жыл бұрын

Kuhn is an investment banker and on the payroll of the Chinese government, he hardly needs patreon.

"self-claimed ambassador of physics..."

Mind-Math-Matter 1. Mind is required to conceive both math and matter 2. Matter is a prerequisite to mind 3. Math is a prerequisite to matter (geometric shapes) Then, one of the following two options must be true: Option 1 It seems as math is required by both mind and matter and this works only if math is discovered and not invented. Option 2 If math was invented (by mind) then mind is required to first invent math and then matter 🤔 and this opens the way in favor for the argument that mind-consciousness is somehow independent of matter.. But, to me it seems as, the generation of structured thought is still dependent on math 🤔

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

How is matter a prereq for mind? Perhaps the other way around

@r2c3

2 жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo when did you start to use your mind, may I ask... do you have any memories from any previous experiences independent from your body... please share...

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

@@r2c3 I suppose I need to interpret your question to get an answer to the one I asked you. Did your mind exist when it first observed your body? So you learned about your body after you were conscious - didn’t you? Consciousness literally is prior to the body in your own case, isn’t it?

@r2c3

2 жыл бұрын

@@deanodebo "Consciousness lterally is prior to the body in your own case.." In my first comment, I concluded that, to me it seems as math is required for the formation of any structured thought... regarding your question "how is matter a prereq to mind?" The only example of mind activity we're aware of is the one coming from a body and that is why I asked you if you had any other evidences of mind activity without a body... "did your mind exist when if first observed your body" Well, my answer to this question is yes, the mind was present inside the body that was conducting the observation... I don't know how could it be otherwise, do you...

@deanodebo

2 жыл бұрын

@@r2c3 Your claim that mind comes from body is an assumption. Explain why the inverse claim is any less valid - that body comes from mind. When I asked “how is matter a prereq to mind”, you said because mind comes from body. Don’t you see how you’re using your claim to argue for your claim? You’re not actually making an argument. If I said body comes from mind, and you asked how I know that - what if I said “because body comes from mind” - would that make sense to you? As far as your claim goes. Do you believe that every concept related to body and matter and the external world in general is conceived in conscious minds? What is a concept? What is a “brain”? It is a concept created by conscious minds. Is it not? You’re going to claim something about the external world that is observed. But what is an observation? Any claim you make will be based on concepts created by mind.

Whose reality?

Reminds me of the story of the three blind men explaining an elephant having touched different parts of it. Physics is supposed to be useful? No physics is supposed to explain what the universe is and how it works through observation, theories based on logical deduction and conclusions based on testing the theories to see if you can disprove them.. Why is it useful to know how far away the Andromeda galaxy is? We're never going to get there and we won't be alive when it passes right through the Milky Way galaxy. Math describes perfectly how matter behaves? Aren't you forgetting Max Planck and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which says the more you know about a particle's position the less you know about its velocity and visa versa. Question, tell me both at a given instant in time. Heisenberg; it can't be figured out, the math says so. But does it exist? It has to. If math explained the universe perfectly there's be no such concept as standard deviation, there'd never be a deviation and the concept of random would be rejected entirely as a fantasy. All three were just different facets of something else. That's an admission that we really don't know. I came to that conclusion about physicists the day Dr. Meissner told me that we think of electromagnetic energy sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves so we call them wavicles and that when we think of them as particles we call them photons and they have no mass.... something made out of nothing. That's when it occurred to me that physicists didn't know what the hell they were talking about and I've had nothing but problems with them ever since. kzread.info/dash/bejne/epagstecp7GTnZM.html And to think they get paid for all this. I went into the wrong profession, engineering where I'm expected to know everything and be right all of the time. Tell me what you think and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

@johnyharris

2 жыл бұрын

But physicists openly admit they don't understand wave particle duality. Why get so upset? If you went into engineering hoping to learn the answer to everything then really that is your problem, not physicists.

mathematics does not create matter, it is just a kind of side product of larger process.

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Believes YOU are showing it trough math proof model. Maybe you are RIGHT . But it is anti Science without concise proof phich are only baseless concept.

@haroonaverroes6537

2 жыл бұрын

there is irrational commented here ! it is a representation of logic, logic is part of larger process. what the irrationals want to argue !

scientists reaching spinozism from every starting direction :)

I’m glad Max Tegmark embraces disagreement because I have to say I disagree fully with this idea that math is fundamental. In my view mathematics is simply a description of reality. It tells us about quantities and what shapes those quantities are in. A snowflake has six points not because the number six formed the snowflake but because that is just the natural pattern that emerges when ice crystals form. Logic right? Same for any structure in nature. -John

@ricklanders

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with what you're saying that math allows us to quantify, but I can also appreciate the question from the other point of view, which is how can the snowflake be said to have "six" points (or 4 or 8 or however many) unless 6 or 4 or 8 already existed in some fundamental way, as an abstract reality, for example, or some kind of Platonic realm, many would call it. Think of it this way: if the snowflake were the only thing existing, we couldn't say it had 6 points without also invoking every other number that exists. 6 on its own without a mathematical structure to define it couldn't exist. All math and all numbers have to exist at once, or else none of them do. So that would seem to pre-exist the snowflake in some important and fundamental way. I don't think math creates the snowflake, but it appears to be more fundamental than the matter, or at least *as* fundamental. I could be wrong, but I think that's what Tegmark is saying.

@miroru1

2 жыл бұрын

In my view mathematics is just a way of thinking that is useful, precise and powerful. So it can't cause anything itself unless someone or something executes something based on it.

@ricklanders

2 жыл бұрын

@@miroru1 But it might have to exist before it's possible for anything else to exist, since everything else depends on those mathematical precisions to exist. I think that's the argument. You can't even know "one" thing exists as a one, let alone calculate 1 + 1 = 2, unless math and numbers already fundamentally exist.

@JohnHowshall

2 жыл бұрын

@@ricklanders As humans we have a tendency to think about things too much. I myself have been guilty of this. We contemplate our reality until reality becomes illogical so we redefine logic and create nonsense. It is a very easy thing for us to do. If I refrain from clapping my hands the number of claps does not exist. If I clap once then the number one now exists and by default the number two now exists, because if one hand-clap is possible then logically two are possible and three and four.... I do not need to clap more than once in order to know how many claps are possible. If I arrange 7 equally sized circles to form a hexagon it is not as if the hexagon were there waiting to be realized by the circles. Rather the hexagon is a necessary result of equally sized circles when they are arranged in their most compacted form. -John

@Vega1447

Жыл бұрын

The obvious gap in MT's argument is that he offers no mechanism for mathematics being realized as matter. Or even any reason "why" this mechanism should exist.

find those equations "those describe the fundamental structure of this universe" sounds funny, it does not work that way and basically needs real rational intelligent entities and continuous hard work, not irrational entities busy with their irrational meanness!

Do we discover math, or do we delude ourselves usefully? The math that Ptolemy used to describe the motion of planets was not so much different than the math Kepler used. Were ellipses unknown to Ptolemy? The assumptions, however, were different. Ptolemy believed the Earth was the center of the Universe and Kepler believed the Sun was the center of the system. The math might as well have been the same, without the fundamental difference in assumptions, however there would be no "discovery". The idea that math is discovered and not invented denies the intellect of man it's proper place. Math doesn't discover anything of itself. Neither does logic. Only the intellect discovers, corroborates, "connections". Kepler didn't discover ellipses, he made a connection between ellipses and the motion of planets around the sun. Was that "connection" a discovery: an independent, physical finding; or was that "connection" a useful, invention? A "thing", or a delusion? The criterion for something to be a physical "thing" is that it must be independently, corroborateable through the senses. The Sun 🌞 is a thing. The criterion for something to be a delusion: useful invention, is that everyone agrees to it. A mental concensus; without independent, physical, existence. Pi is a delusion. Only by agreeing to inventions called circles and lines do we arrive at a relationship between the "diameter" of a circle and "its circumference". There are no non-invented circles or diameters that are ONLY circles and diameters. The moon is round and has the perimeter of a circle, but the moon is not "a circle". Indeed, without compass and rulers would we ever know that "a circle" has a center, through which radii and diameters must be connected? If math were discovered and not invented why could Ptolemy not use his prodigious, mathematical ability to discover the "true" motion of the planets around the sun? Math is not a sensual, existence that leads to "connections": discovery. Math is a consistent, invention that correlates with things that exists. The "connection" between math and reality is man. The "connection" between man and reality is not math, it's consciousness. Our eyes connect us to the world. We can use telescopes 🔭 and microscopes 🔬 to help us see more. Math is a lens, a useful lens, but invented for the eye. Ptolemy and Kepler both saw the same things, but their mathematical models were different. Why? Because math is invented, their lenses were different. If math were discovered their lenses would have been the same. No?

If we are in the matrix, the worlds of matter and maths are far less important than the world of mind.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

A matrix is a mother who can bring anything in existence.

God I love this channel, and I am an atheist!

@assholejohn

2 жыл бұрын

That literally doesn't make any sense because this channel (mostly) deals with mathematics and reasoning rather than religious burblings disguised as explanations.

@Scroticus_Maximus

2 жыл бұрын

@@assholejohn Mostly

@assholejohn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Scroticus_Maximus Yeah but to the extent they do it is the degree that they are just trying to bring in the religious people so that they can feel better about at least partially abandoning most all of their religious crap. Mostly

Math describes how matter behaves. But math does not dictate that there should be matter. So there has to be something that dictates the math that has to be instantiated. It prescribes math. That something is the mind of God. Math on its own is powerless. The mind of God has the power no instantiate math, through it, to instantiate matter and how it has to behave, and the mind of God also has the power to create other minds. Us. Made upon his image.

@S3RAVA3LM

2 жыл бұрын

Nice comment. Math would require 'being' so to be a rational forming principle so to apply itself, that being math, upon things which are formed, and come into existence.

@kos-mos1127

2 жыл бұрын

No.

@Vega1447

Жыл бұрын

well put.

7 Metaphysical Questions 1) How do we remove the current cornerstone called ignorance (greed from life and replace it with the cornerstone of truth (love)? 2) How do we remove the heavy lead called ignorance (greed) from the springboard of truth (love) so that the springboard rebounds to happiness and launches US to heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). 3) How do we release the string of lies being pulled by ignorance (greed)...so that the bow of truth returns to happiness and propels US to heaven (joy, beauty and harmony)? 4) How do we fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)...so that its darkness (misery, murder, mass shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet? 5) How do we know down the wall of lies saying that "life is business" (greed)...so that the truth that "life is art" (creating joy) floods the earth and washes away its ignorance (hate)? 6) How do we make the hostile alien vampires (greed) who are blind...see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). 7) How do we make the hostile alien vampires (greed) who are blind...see the ignorance of destroying the planet? Bonus Question Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

Penrose believed mathematics is base on faith.

Honestly Max concept Universe are impossble knows he minds. It is sometimes obscure and phisch worthless in Universe . Again speak up he Not show upon Universe true .It is murky from him are so ignorant about phich.

I write things that seem as though beyond another's wildest dreams. All free. See in replies for alternatives to the Matter/Mind/Maths equation. Enjoy.✍️✨

@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi

2 жыл бұрын

..Howdy.✍️✨ We are as much expansion had used deduction, comparisons ourselves as much as the comparisons we draw. As history expands as does universe & everything changes beneath & including our noses, truth faster than light, we with reality ebb & flow in the elbow-room gaps twixt perfection & imperfection. writers feel along the inner-sharp-shard-star together throughout the ages like one another. we walk wherever an agreement stands twixt truth & hope. (duel slit experiment reference). the less able to tell twixt two things, we draw nearer to actual present. Fear of what in our surroundings created us consciousness, & we carry a piece of this beginnings with us. the less able to tell between two things, we stand to notice & attack who've last been mistreated, doing it faster than we know we're doing it to stop ourselves. you might see a mother picking on her teenage daughter. she cannot tell she had been the very last asshol to had mistreated her, & again & again she picks. I call the behaviour 'Rabies-bull', a mix of God complex & small man's. Quite a dangerous combination. The more a person's able to tell twixt two things, the easier they permeate over the uni-multi-realm of universe of different sized same universe. This so to ebb & flow multiple times per ticktweentime (a measurement of space twixt you & you). your event horizon ..is betwixt you & you. everything consists of a gap. We leap so not to keep answering questions mid asking them. it can get fairly annoying, & a writer when annoyed ..might not write such nice things. It might be well worth avoiding. we're the sun ..we just live beside ourselves. we drip from enormous 'fire apples'. a person can be maths, mind & maths, the same way as we're both perfection & imperfection at once, not to say the the two aren't always seperate. they're held together by the story. by whereabouts, & possibility. I write of an eternal one eye of time, of faster back than ventured forth. I've interesting lineage, perhaps further than many from present. I keep a pretty cool head generally. Just getting something. back in a tick.🕯️💃

@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi

2 жыл бұрын

Aaaand my phone went flat. I had 3 similar equations to show you. Get in touch if interested in a convo. No one ever does, you know. So totally alone, sometimes I wonder TOM Tournament Of Minds ruined my life. I need to know someone. I live in a cold antique villiage, starved for a people who don't mind me. It won't happen here either. *Pinches self to double check I exist.*.

@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi

Жыл бұрын

Some of us weren't waiting for go-ahead lol. I write theories. What on earth is theoretical physics? You guys are trying to complicate things lol. Stop it.

For mathematics to create matter you have yourself another 'hard problem'.

I have a man crush on max.

math mind matter...

Math is ying and Physic is yang...forever it will be.

@S3RAVA3LM

2 жыл бұрын

Arithmetics?

@jettmthebluedragon

2 жыл бұрын

I thought death and life were ying and Yang 😐

"everything is made up of mathematics.

Well of course because it's all a simulation

Not a deep thinker. Little depth. Keeps it safe.

It's a shame that science has degenerated into so much waffle, I understand that a lot of it is due to the clinging on of the outdated and redundant concept of philosophy, but sheesh.

The so-called ultimate questions are fallacious and stupid and aren't the questions that really matter.

Please give me trillions of $. I will return you by multiply with 0. Would you agree in this time?? Now think about your maths.

A mathematician claims the universe is made of mathematics just as a Chinese person could claim it is made of Chinese. There is an error in Max's logic.

God's geometry is law and order. We must have to calculate it to understand it. 📐🕐🔥

@maxwellsimoes238

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong GOD geometry Not show upon consistence concept Universe because Universe are unpredicted and geometry are limited from unknow Universe.

@kricketflyd111

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxwellsimoes238 lol

@abelincoln8885

2 жыл бұрын

@@maxwellsimoes238 Only an intelligence ... makes, maintains, improves & FINE TUNES ... abstract & physical Functions. Everything in the Universe is an abstract ( time, space, Laws of Nature) or physical ( matter, energy) Function. Science ( a Function) relies completely on the fixed Laws of Nature( functions) for Man ( Function) to explain natural phenomena (functions).