Rambler 22 edited 6 November
Topic CCQM Cosmology, Consciousness & Quantum Mechanics
5 minute read: years to study.
A proper scientific definition of ‘reality’
A simulation war game, yet starting with tennis. .
This because most scientists clearly don’t understand what ‘Q.E.D’. means.
What makes statistics and thus probabilistic reasoning difficult is set theory. Especially when it becomes dynamically shifting. Having a goal or no goal changes the rules of the game in which both positions are equally valid! Only 1% of humanity has the required artistic DNA talent in that 10% far above average complex problems the cosmos on average throws at us humans.
“Game, Set and Match!” In tennis game play wordings. Well, yes in over kill several times over actually. Yet science even in transition is still in religious denial, in the non-spiritual meaning of the word. Having been validly falsified for foul play and thus disqualified.
Well ‘game’ won by me Q.E.D., ‘set’ won by me Q.E.D. and with hindsight due to disqualification ‘match’ won be me Q.E.D..
There are rules in this game for being able to ask for a retrial i.e. rematch. It requires nova (new facts) after a disqualification. Scientists need to first redeem themselves. Such as to stop using mental definition drugs for this in effect addiction of trying to conceal problems via hypnotic wordings and framing. First off it they should start with acknowledging this mental addiction.
That however being a formal position, we’ll skip that for the time being.
As tennis is an old school concept for many, so I’ll put it in more modern wordings:
I claim to have won most levels of the simulation safe war game.
As I’ve already put forward the problem lies in not having done the high school level stuff of setting up the simulated game play properly. For starters not getting the most fundamental or elementary postulates, axioms, definitions, goals and thus rule books i.e. manuals of the collective and individual human brains in order before starting the game.
We can’t skip that in any way, for that is formality with dire consequences – or material effect – on any stated goal such as even the bare survival of humanity.
Well let’s ignore the fact that science even in transition is fully disqualified, yet only in so far as that they have a degree stating that they best know what they are doing. That degree sec is null and void here.
Yet that again in overkill: science (all scientists) need to explain themselves on my / anyone’s accusation that they have breached the social contract with humanity. Yet the proper orderly proceeding of a truly fair trial must be given to a professional with the appropriate degree and experience. Well as a former magistrate and lawyer I’ll preside on that in the proper holy legal trinity of judge (& jury), prosecutor and lawyer of the accused. Like any decent human with bildung should know to be correct.
Again correcting science on the goal of science as per correct best practice definition thereof:
A decent systematic search for all the laws of everything and all-inclusive bildung.
Q.E.D. current science even in transition is falsified.
This is my Wikipedia style definition. Anyone and especially scientists are asked even dared to pose valid falsification of anything on this blog being a. Illogical b. incorrect or incomplete data c. better practice.
“Science” is per logical definition all scientists q.q. (qualitate qua https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/qualitate_qua (whether this Dutch borrowing from Roman Law I’d have to check. Yet irrelevant (legal lingo: “immaterial”) for a handy sticker / definition.))
Having already had on my ‘to do list’ the puzzling way scientists use the definition of “reality” after having seen Sabine Hossenfelders video on that topic. It’s furthermore (as suspected) proven by her, a completely wrong definition. One that can be added to the list I started in my post on definitions being hypnotical anxiety wordings.
Correct definition of ‘Reality’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality is the most-fundamental thus elementary complete consistent interpretation of all observations, in that set theory domain of everything that is relevant on the probandum on the laws of everything, filling in the inherently incomplete evidence in a proven best practice way via a valid circumstantial evidence proof.
Scientists are per current most treaties on fundamental human rights and most democratic legal systems required not to wittingly or even unwittingly con humanity including themselves by using the term “reality” in any other way.
In those cases they may only use ‘sub-reality’.
So mathematicians when talking about “real numbers” must always caution that this concerns a sub set of real reality being complete reality or ‘reality’ sec. The whole truth and nothing but the truth ladies & lads!
They are required on pain of criminal prosecution, having caused (and even when unwittingly inciting) genocide via weapons of mass destruction and preventable amok by science, following a civil law suit being sued for damages having caused mayhem in the courts of law, or at best first disciplinary scientific tribunal, yet even better before that in a scientific discourse given (if need be behind closed doors in a safe environment) a ‘terme de grace’ to redeem themselves.
Being as the judge presiding as amicus curiae by profession honour bound to caution scientists even in absentia, for them q.q. not allowed to ‘live under a stone’. So a ‘wir haben es nicht gewusst’, plea is best not held, for it being q.q. your bloody job to know or find out. A ‘q.q.’ or ‘qualified offence’ can further more be treated more harshly. As their q.q. lawyer I must advise my even unwilling clients to best plead guilty in order to shorten the agony of being continuously flogged by a fair proceeding on a lost cause. For science even in transition is in a ‘probatio diabolica’ situation. Due to it being q.q. you can’t reverse the burden of proof. I.e. your job not mine. Mine is to point that out to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probatio_diabolica#:~:text=Probatio%20diabolica%20(Latin%3A%20%22devil’s,individual%20facing%20the%20probatio%20diabolica.
Both formally and materially science even in transition has already lost the match.
The idea that Gödel has mathematically proven that mathematics is incomplete via his incompleteness theorem is wrong. Systematically this use of the word ‘theorem’ is wrong for it must be called Gödel’s ‘local law on current incompleteness of mathematics’.
As my above doodle graphic best practice proves in a 2D static representation of a 4D dynamic geometry problem, “Gödel’s theorem” doesn’t for can’t touch my only one remaining or inherent start position postulate of consistency. As advocate of the position of Gödel it’s baring a claim of absolute proof clear that Gödel can’t formally object to my use of postulates. Given his own use of postulates, axioms and definitions and conventions he has indeed proven that the correct interpretation of his local law is that it then is unsolvably incomplete. Gödel per posterior odds mathematical proof (implicit) claim that this also concerns all reality can be falsified when on different postulate of consistency sec, for when done correctly that logically tyrannically requires it to be complete already falsifies Gödel’s position as to reality.
The possible claim of an invalid circular argument on my part fails. For stating that ‘consistency’ is a postulate already logically dictates on a probandum of reality it being ‘complete’. So I’ve indeed conjured something out of my high top hat, yet so has Gödel, that was put into the hat in the first place. For any argument based on any postulate or axiom is inherently incomplete qua data. Yet not qua possible logically consistent with all known data laws.
Now then, in the simulation game what is the first set theory domain of (inherently deepest) reality?
Well the correct systematic rules for winning the great scientific tennis backeoff Jihad is that the match is won by on a probandum of backing a mathematically complete consistent Newton Apple Pie, (not Pi thus) is the one who wins the last set of one game after winning the two sets of winning two games per set. This only proves that English are correctly so not systematic in judging the winner in games that are primarily for the fun, and good sportsmanship. A fine English tradition to make the keeping of the score incomprehensible.
However when playing for bare survival as this game entails this should be forbidden for otherwise it all will go haywire.
The rule is thus the proven best of five games.
In computer simulation lingo the winner of the most consecutive levels.
- Proven completely consistent idea, or post-it level showing potential on any goal in reality.
- Proven completely consistent concept, or A4 paper level, showing that same potential.
- Proven completely consistent theory, or book level, with all logics and mathematics used, ditto potential.
- Proven completely consistent Local Law, library level, with ditto logics and mathematics, ditto potential.
- Proven completely consistent all Laws of Everything via a thus one Grand Law of Everything. Art Gallery level.
Mind as rule of thumb that all laws sec are also Post-it level. The proofs are more A4 level. The circumstances are book, library & art gallery level.
Given the hypothetical postulate of complete consistency already neigh absolutely proves the sub-reality of one Grand Law of Everything QED that postulate of its existence is no longer hypothetical.
Given that postulate the sub-reality of one as yet empty top hat of that law exists as a proven idea. So science is beaten at the first level of gameplay scenario on deepest reality.
Because a picture says more than a thousand words the doodle graphic shows the first complete super set theory domain of completely all points that need to be consistently described one 1 A4.
Wham! QED sience is soundly beaten at the second level of our science sim.
Science can’t follow when clinging on to Gödel as an obvious ring of desire. The latter is a memory bank with a strong relative will. For it is in breach of a postulate that already proves a best practice by showing to have played according to game play every high school kid with first year science class should be able to understand. As a > 99% truth. The hilarious postulate of consistency being indeed in other words “that Gödel is wrong on any probandum of reality.”
For logically the only positions in Gödel’s and thus science’s that are open for them to be proven, is the proof that completeness is impossible for even only in part real magic or unsolvable for humanity as a whole being too stupid to solve this too complex problem.
Alas in one go I proven the first five levels that there most probably is only one Grand law of Everything, and subsequently in one jump get another two proving complete consistent concept of completeness in reality. Of course on a correct definition of reality having posed valid falsification and rectification of science. This then following having done that the same way on the bloody definition of proper science.
So even if science wasn’t justly disqualified, which they still are, then still all scientists clinging on to Gödel are falsified in their position having been proven untenable.
In one of the next posts, which is nearly complete, I’ll again prove the ten laws of everything and humaneness in the double way required. I.e. neigh absolute proof of the existence of twenty two empty top hats, being only one paradoxical illusion, requiring to be filled with appropriate i.e. complete, i.e. no exceptions or negligible result, evidence.
The new twists to the old school are, by as a magistrate and lawyer having done, what science should of done :
- Rigorously going by the old school book and not cutting any corners as science is proven to have done in an extremely successful way. Having science due to dopamine success in a nonspiritual way become addicted. This by religious-hypnotics as DNA survival trait preventing adapting to the rapidly changing biotope of our own making . Neigh absolute proof.
- Observing that Bayes is all encompassing logic and mathematics niche paradox illusion of our synapses. Neigh absolute proof.
- Observing the four easy to learn to spot speeds of the four synapses, and the required to spot that four algorithms of DNA personality as the new psychics of psychology. Neigh absolute proof elevating all soft sciences to only a paradoxically beginning of an exact science. Ditto proof of the only way to prevent poverty as slavery and thus war.
CONCLUSION
Again QED proven best practice at yet another new higher therefor breakthrough level. Study the ten commandments of this model! Yet better take a leap of faith follow the post scriptum below.
Footnotes: https://grisblog180460.wordpress.com/2021/08/31/my-blog-post-reader/
(yet to be updated.)
Post Scriptum
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
Ergo: Ask Dutch politicians to test the new R&D Oracle Senate!
Any group of scientists or poor third world community can effectively do so. As long as it reaches Dutch media.
It will then quickly, and hopefully still in time, work like a viral domino effect preventing WW3 as per Physics of War Ingo Piepers Amok Algorithm.
· Permalink
This looks to me like a nice example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Having been brainwashed by successfully completing a prestigious lawyer’s education at Leiden University, you think you are a master of the universe. But actually, your main skill is in drinking large quantities of booze and in talking hind legs of donkeys. As a lawyer, you only have to argue with other lawyers. This does not equip you with understanding the real world, women (as a male lawyer, women are the biggest mystery of all), or science. You are so good at this you think you are a genius and that you have the solutions to all the problems of the world, including the ultimate question of the meaning of life, the universe and everything. Remember: the solution is “42”, but the corresponding question cannot co-exist in this universe with the solution. Douglas Adams died rather young of a heart attack, while exercising on his exercise bike. I don’t think he had the answers either.
· Permalink
Well Richard you keep on falling into the Dunning-Kruger conmen twin trap.
Actually the doodle graphic shows the correct way that I’m fully aware of knowing very little about anything. Yet I do know on basis of the little I do know that we humans are in dire straits heading for nuclear winter.
Ergo I only use high school level stuff, and show indisputably and undisputed by you complete consistency at this level.
Furthermore the way you debate who’s the one of us both who’s brain washed, is akin a Monty Python argument clinic sketch. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7h8goi
More apt then your attempt at jumping to 42, and do mind, as I said, it to ultimately be a criminal offence warranting a proper punchline.
For contrary to you I claim position, state position and prove position.
You only state positions and prove nothing.
We agree that Gödel’s theorem is correct mathematical proof of current incompleteness.
And due to having drawn the doodle graphic via trial and error I’ve indeed first of all come across the better definitions for axioms and postulates.
Postulates are indeed what physics minor (current physics) should be using as part of their Local Laws (LoL’s Monty Python pun intended.) Ergo postulates are part of the super set of axioms.
So I punch myself over the head with this punch line and will duly correct my mistake in the coming post.
The task of science as part of the social contract with humanity is to formulate the axioms being contrary to postulates most fundamental i.e. elementary. Indeed elementary high school stuff.
After this punch line of me to you, you say WHAAHH! You’re probably good.
· Permalink
You state your assumptions which are that you are right and that you are judge and jury. You then show that you understand nothing about set theory, maths, or Gödel’s theorem. I recommend you take some time out to *study” Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hoffstadter. Of course two persons who each perceive that the other doesn’t know something that they ought to know can shout Dunning Kruger at one another. But I’m a mathematician and do not claim to be anything more. You are a lawyer and claim to be everything.
I say this because if you have good arguments for what we can do to prevent world war 3, then you are more likely to get them across to other people, and hence to prevent world war 3, if you *don’t* at the same time claim to have unique access to the ultimate truth in matters of probability theory, mathematics, physics, psychology.
Less is more!
· Permalink
Four separate routes Richard:
1. Indeed less is more!
2. The Big Book Multi Media Millions
3. ‘Conviction Intime Two’
4. Just in Time Blogging.
Ad 1. Route Less is more!
Well, in one way you are right and you should know by now that I already know that you are right.
So I was at the same time already working on “the less is more” route.
Yet in concurrence with what I preach, I’m doing that with the help of others. I hope and believe to have something concrete soon. That’s the current paradigm sales department route.
The only thing needed in that respect is to break the taboo in the Dutch media on a ‘senators for life’ test. Not my talent nor my expertise to not cross the inherently religious boundaries. I usually break all the rules in that respect. Call it a lack of that core competence. Yet knowing that, I deal with it.
And contrary to what you think, my Yin ‘less is more’ is supplemented with Yang ‘As much that is needed.’
Odd that you as a Buddhist continuously blot this out.
And Furthermore, I’ve made more headway than you think. I for instance nearly had Rutte indeed do the test. There are several facts that as yet not apparent to you that prove you wrong that I’m convincing no one.
Ad 2. The Big Book Multi Media Millions
Contrary to what you keep on stating, I’m fully aware that I’m a complete idiot.
That’s just the main bloody point.
Proof: the last doodle graphic. We all are, yet different sorts of idiots that need to learn and subsequently organize literally all-inclusive cooperation. Everyone only hears want they want to hear. That is the current system that “works”. Indeed for it obviously doesn’t when no one is allowed to attempt to provide a healthy manic oversight in a Wikipedia style way. The cobbler stick to thy last paradigm as an earning model.
Yet that is a taboo, even to a degree with you!
So that requires a paradigm shift. That works via the authority of peer groups. As soon as your peer groups shove so will you even unwittingly. Yet easier said than done. Although it figures according to what I’m rambling on about, it remains remarkable that this doesn’t compute with you.
In effect not having consistency in mathematics and thus completeness in physics as the two most fundamental axioms is exactly where it all goes wrong with humanity in general culminating in war.
A garbage-in problem.
This opening of new mental markets requires bashing. You can’t sell anything when there isn’t a (neurological) market yet. All soft scientists and sales departments will agree on that.
You simply per logical definition can’t mathematically disprove axioms, old boy. Again high school stuff. I’ve got a high school diploma.
Do you as a mathematician hold that you can mathematically disprove any axiom in mathematics?
Do you as a mathematician hold that ‘completeness’ is a purely mathematical problem?
The mathematics of Gödel is no doubt sound.
I don’t dispute that for I trust you mathematicians blindly in that when a large majority reach consensus. That’s too complicated for me. So contrary to what you claim, I’m not in any way more in the field of mathematics than at high school level. The Kruger-Dunning conmen-twins can’t touch me there.
Yet definitions are inherently taboo areas. Science including mathematics needs to clean up its act. Science in Transition acknowledges this yet shy away from addressing the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate. Leading to the incomprehensible division between soft and exact science.
All science proper should be exact.
To comply there is the same trick as no doubt in the start of the Lucia de B. case was done. With a weak case send a dossier the size of a library to bedazzle the uninformed. As you are fully aware of the Lucia de B. case in its core was less than one A4 text. Neatly done by Gerard ‘t Hooft, arranged via you in a newspaper.
Otherwise Lucia de Berk would still have been behind bars.
It’s all about authority within the respective peer groups.
The fundamental problem is that deciding to do the test will at best only buy more time in preventing world war 3.
It’s also essential to be seen to start to quickly eradicate all forms of poverty.
That in turn requires people – even you – to learn to distinguish blue from green so to speak.
Or to be more precise distinguish fast and slower thinkers.
The thought alone scares most shitless.
Yet what I’m doing is a litigation method of simply confronting as many people as possible with the idea. The same sound method I used with Rutte, via informing all senators in the month’s prior to his foreseeable political problems. It doesn’t matter that most think nothing of it, or some even deem me mad. As we Dutch say when one sheep is over the dam, others will follow.
For without quickly by the new Oracle Senate subsequently building via testing a base economy in the Dutch Antilles, preferably even also at the same time testing it with law firms and the press as advised by me in the then new oracle senate experiment , it still won’t stop WW3.
People need justified hope a.s.a.p. and you need to grasp the commanding heights of the legal system and the press.
As any dictator also knows and you obviously don’t yet seem to comprehend.
Yet now we contrary to the past dictate freedom, real justice via Just Proof and peace.
In effect “bribing” everyone via a decent income that the rich will be glad to provide.
Once they grasp that having a decent content life as a millionaire requires a decent way of living.
No-one really wants to be a billionaire in private spending. Billionaires brains want esteem, to be in power yet no-one has a money gene in their DNA.
They all fear letting go of narcissistic control.
And unwittingly have sometimes traumatic even overriding gut feelings of shame and guilt.
The same goes for getting the idea of a modern monarch across, getting the focus of dictators of a war solution and on to that solution.
Humanity must learn to keep balance.
No economic balance ends in war.
No political balance ends in war.
No military balance ends in war.
No ecological balance ends in war.
No well-informed durable advice to all no balance………thus war.
A back to nature norm won’t work with 7 billion. Humanity has long crossed that Rubicon. It’s tantamount to genocide to do nothing and let Mother Nature sort it out via war.
I’m not the no-all you make me out to be for I like the rest of humanity ultimately need an international well informed network advice on what is best.
500 uranium nuclear power plants or not? Or do you know that answer dear friend?
Ad 3 Conviction Intime Two
In lieu of this the aim a ‘conviction intime’ mark two is in the making to get something along those lines going as well. Some of us are working on that as well.
Humans like you and me are still apes on an ape-rock that ogle each other. Seeing how others react, is something that your brain – even unwittingly – senses , especially when sensed to be an authority. Your brain will automatically sway even your deep religious beliefs. Probably even the Babylonians before the Greeks and other ancient cultures in Africa and Asia knew and know this.
Yet it must be done in a safe environment.
The tried and tested subsequent method even the Romans and also the colonial powers used then as “parasites of the parasites that already enslaved others” is not to endanger any existing powers that be. Yet only as long as they play along.
The new senate will very quickly become the voice of science proper via providing proper funding to science.
Come to think of it, why not immediately guarantee all scientists a decent income until the day they die as well, when the experiment is a success?
You simply let the senate give advice on the following:
Take half the GNI. Yet when the 10% fastest thinkers don’t get the most they will first of all not to the required by all degree of > 90% be swayed to study the greatest pile of books. Have you ever noticed some medical specialists aren’t fast enough thinkers to grasp the under lying statistics in their own field having in the current system successfully occupied a job that they are formally yet not per talent qualified for? Never a truly happy monkey then. No-one then is. Especially the patients.
In my model you can test that a below average fast thinker having had ditto education and job will have a nicer life and have much more chance in becoming a millionaire. By simply doing the stuff you’re good at and leaving the rest to others who are always better at that. A truth that testable applies to all.
More Millionaires, No Poor, No War isn’t fiction but can be fact in the Netherlands within at the soonest two years even.
Labour becomes cheap then. Most will think about the danger of capital fleeing abroad. That won’t happen. For they will be justly taxed.
And they can delve into the other half of the GNI being a capitalist system with a true level playing field.
The simple trick is to tax success. That never hurts anyone.
And the other trick is not to kill the hen with the golden eggs.
The community as shareholder -with no say – appoints independent counsels to the board of directors. As long as you pay dividend the firm can go on as the billionaire boss but only millionaire in private says.
Yet this is all a “don’t bore me with the details” problem. Simply follow correct procedure. It’ll work out as of natural. At least that is the test.
Oh BTW we Dutch sold the idea of shares and companies to the world. And I actually studied business law. And I have experience in dealing with participation companies and foreign investors.
For the way judges work and the legal system will have immediately have changed fundamentally. Complete game changer.
My field of expertise. mind you!
It’s so bloody simple: take a truly free independent press. How to get that? Well provide a guaranteed decent income as the basis. Any idiot which they all are that doesn’t know how to then behave will quickly run into justified problems if everyone has a guaranteed decent income. That you can all test in the Antilles.
These ideas can be tested before that in a conviction intime setting.
Ad 4 Just in Time Blogging
I’m practicing what I preach. Simply stating Wikipedia style how I see it. Trial and error.
It’s all linked together. The four speeds of brain is classical quantum mechanical grand string-law of everything.
I state position, that I can prove this position to be way better practice than anything science has at the moment. You can test that including the completeness and test the consistency.
Several physicists have done so and every time after some adding and tinkering the model has improved. As it also does with experimental results in that field.
The supportive evidence keeps on pouring in.
There are people who start noticing this BTW.
Like in any CSI case when in the right track.
Others see this as well Richard.
You carry the burden of disproof where I claim proof. The later doesn’t make me a know-it-all.
You are the know-it-all then. Not I.
I only claim a first flight of a prototype of only all tested parts by me in an otherwise unfathomable complex problem.
There is a real and present danger that the harbors of Amsterdam and Rotterdam will be nuked next year, when this I see with Xi and Putin, which isn’t all in Dutch media, goes on further spiraling out of control. It is – maybe – still preventable.
I can truthfully state then, that I tried my upmost.
Yet I’m still shore I’ll pull this off in the nick of time. As I’ve done so often in the past.
· Permalink