info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Theory of everything, universal rewrite system, now applied to coding
51 views
Skip to first unread message
Nando Ronteltap
Nov 25, 2022, 10:10:23 AM11/25/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As talked about before, the mathematical nilpotent universal rewrite system is basically the theory of everything (every material thing). By Rowlands and Diaz.
The theory depends on the principle of rewriting, like for example you can write the same information to your harddisk, or on a DVD. So it is different, but the same in the sense of being a copy.
It is the most efficient theory possible, which makes the theory default, and actually also likely true.
In a sense it supports both evolution and creation, because it has an ordering derived from nothing, and that looks evolution like.
This theory is anticipatory, positing a future of possiblities. Which means ofcourse that evolution theory is wrong, and intelligent design theory is right.
Now they have used their theory to make a coding computer language.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2197/1/012023
I do not actually fully comprehend this theory.
Creationism is also a theory of everything. Creationism is better than this, because creationism validates the concept of subjectivity, the entire subjective part of reality.
What is curious to me is that "rewriting", which is the central mechanism in the theory of Rowlands and Diaz, is very similar to the logic of objectivity.
Rewriting is basically the same kind of thing as making a 1 to 1 corresponding model of something.
So then I wonder, could the logic of subjectivity, also be reflective of a fundamental law of nature, same as the logic of objectivity is reflective of the fundamental law of nature of rewriting?
Something like that objects would be considered in terms of them being communication between decisionmakers.
I hope some day to properly learn this theory of the universal rewrite system, and find out what the place for subjectivity is in it. But I wouldn't bet on it, that I am actually going to do that, eventhough supposedly this is essentially an extremly simple theory in the fundamentals of it.
The theory depends on the principle of rewriting, like for example you can write the same information to your harddisk, or on a DVD. So it is different, but the same in the sense of being a copy.
It is the most efficient theory possible, which makes the theory default, and actually also likely true.
In a sense it supports both evolution and creation, because it has an ordering derived from nothing, and that looks evolution like.
This theory is anticipatory, positing a future of possiblities. Which means ofcourse that evolution theory is wrong, and intelligent design theory is right.
Now they have used their theory to make a coding computer language.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2197/1/012023
I do not actually fully comprehend this theory.
Creationism is also a theory of everything. Creationism is better than this, because creationism validates the concept of subjectivity, the entire subjective part of reality.
What is curious to me is that "rewriting", which is the central mechanism in the theory of Rowlands and Diaz, is very similar to the logic of objectivity.
Rewriting is basically the same kind of thing as making a 1 to 1 corresponding model of something.
So then I wonder, could the logic of subjectivity, also be reflective of a fundamental law of nature, same as the logic of objectivity is reflective of the fundamental law of nature of rewriting?
Something like that objects would be considered in terms of them being communication between decisionmakers.
I hope some day to properly learn this theory of the universal rewrite system, and find out what the place for subjectivity is in it. But I wouldn't bet on it, that I am actually going to do that, eventhough supposedly this is essentially an extremly simple theory in the fundamentals of it.
Harry Krishna
Nov 29, 2022, 10:25:05 AM11/29/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:09:30 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>I do not actually fully comprehend this theory.
If true, that would represent a distinct improvement over your usual
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>I do not actually fully comprehend this theory.
standard of not understanding anything at all.
Nando Ronteltap
Nov 29, 2022, 1:30:06 PM11/29/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
So, fantastic "new" theory of everything, super-efficient, establishing anticipation as a reality of physics, with lots of credibility, because of it now being practically applied to coding, and for you this all is just an oppurtunity to continue being an asshole.
Incidentally, as far as I know, Rowlands is an anti-creationist. I watched a video of him teaching a class, imploring his students to forget about a creator.
This is because the way his theory is structured is to make the least amount of assumptions possible. He for instance does not even assume a mathematical operator like multiplication, he derives the operator of multiplication from his more fundamental simple rules. So then to assume a creator, would be a violation of this principle to make the least assumptions possible.
But I am quite sure he is clueless about subjectivity, that the entire creator category is subjective. So that the total assumption of it is naught.
On the other hand Rowlands worked closely with Vanessa Hill. An accomplished scientis who headed or heads, a largescale project to use algae blooms for fuel. Which didn't work out as planned, but last I read they are redesigning the project for algae to be used as replacements for things like plastics, instead of only fuel. Vanessa Hill seems to have been a radical atheist, who has somewhat backtracked a bit. She wrote a screed acknowledging that choice is real. So maybe she would be clued into the fact somewhat about how subjectivity works.
So maybe they know how subjectivity works, maybe they don't, but I bet they don't, otherwise they would have explicitly said so.
So this theory is extremely simple in the fundamentals of it, because it makes the least assumptions possible. So it is well within my or anyone's intellectual grasp. And then very likely, this theory has 1 big omission, which is the logic of subjectivity. So that I could very possibly ammend this theory to achieve the perfect theory of everything. In which case I would be the main figure in the entire history of science. I mean the first person to get the perfect mathematical theory of everything, would be the main person in the history of science.
Op dinsdag 29 november 2022 om 16:25:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:
Incidentally, as far as I know, Rowlands is an anti-creationist. I watched a video of him teaching a class, imploring his students to forget about a creator.
This is because the way his theory is structured is to make the least amount of assumptions possible. He for instance does not even assume a mathematical operator like multiplication, he derives the operator of multiplication from his more fundamental simple rules. So then to assume a creator, would be a violation of this principle to make the least assumptions possible.
But I am quite sure he is clueless about subjectivity, that the entire creator category is subjective. So that the total assumption of it is naught.
On the other hand Rowlands worked closely with Vanessa Hill. An accomplished scientis who headed or heads, a largescale project to use algae blooms for fuel. Which didn't work out as planned, but last I read they are redesigning the project for algae to be used as replacements for things like plastics, instead of only fuel. Vanessa Hill seems to have been a radical atheist, who has somewhat backtracked a bit. She wrote a screed acknowledging that choice is real. So maybe she would be clued into the fact somewhat about how subjectivity works.
So maybe they know how subjectivity works, maybe they don't, but I bet they don't, otherwise they would have explicitly said so.
So this theory is extremely simple in the fundamentals of it, because it makes the least assumptions possible. So it is well within my or anyone's intellectual grasp. And then very likely, this theory has 1 big omission, which is the logic of subjectivity. So that I could very possibly ammend this theory to achieve the perfect theory of everything. In which case I would be the main figure in the entire history of science. I mean the first person to get the perfect mathematical theory of everything, would be the main person in the history of science.
Op dinsdag 29 november 2022 om 16:25:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:
Harry Krishna
Nov 29, 2022, 1:55:05 PM11/29/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:27:01 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>So, fantastic "new" theory of everything
Which you admit that you don't understand, yet you insist on posting
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>So, fantastic "new" theory of everything
about it regardless. Why?
Nando Ronteltap
Nov 29, 2022, 4:10:06 PM11/29/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Fucking idiot, it's potentially the biggest theory in the history of science, is why I post about it. In principle it describes the origins of everything.
Also, I am providing people here with a potential oppurtunity to be the greatest scientist of all time, by ammending this theory to perfection, by including the logic of subjectivity in it, at a fundamental level.
Again, this theory is made to be very simple in the fundamentals of it, so it would be doable for anyone, if it is possible.
Op dinsdag 29 november 2022 om 19:55:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:
Also, I am providing people here with a potential oppurtunity to be the greatest scientist of all time, by ammending this theory to perfection, by including the logic of subjectivity in it, at a fundamental level.
Again, this theory is made to be very simple in the fundamentals of it, so it would be doable for anyone, if it is possible.
Op dinsdag 29 november 2022 om 19:55:05 UTC+1 schreef Harry Krishna:
Harry Krishna
Dec 1, 2022, 9:20:07 AM12/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 13:05:41 -0800 (PST), Nando Ronteltap
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>Fucking idiot, it's potentially the biggest theory in the history of science, is why I post about it. In principle it describes the origins of everything.
Even though you don't understand it? Make up your mind.
<nando_r...@live.nl> wrote:
>Fucking idiot, it's potentially the biggest theory in the history of science, is why I post about it. In principle it describes the origins of everything.
0 new messages