A completed theory of everything!

Oh boy, you are indeed a laugh ! ...

.out of some cartoon probably...get a life or talk to someone else from your league...sell your silly thinking to some naive that is willing to buy it..or probably you should just write an article to the world giving notice that you have proof on what you posit on your footnotes...who the well do you think you are talking to, a child ?

you are nothing but an empty balloon hidden in false science and practically zero knowledge...

do you think because you throw some links and give away some lose sentences that you posit anything...Jesus !!!

anyone that ever read your crap can clearly see how empty and shallow is your reasoning...your capacity of grasping sentences and words is so linear that speaking with you is a total waste of time and purpose...

bother me no more !

I am selling something? Remember what actual happen. I told you that the assumption for worlds to be "linked"( whatever this means) can be rejected. You say it does not make sense to you, and 13 pages latter, we are here. I fully accept the possibility that modal realism is wrong, but you conviction is just too much for a decent open discussion. Who is laughable?

Were did you accepted at any given time that what you have been positing can be wrong ? Point me to it if you please...You in fact use words as being certain, knowing, and so on...

...pathetic and pitiful !

As for disjointed Realities the burden of proof falls to who advocates it...not me certainly.

I just was not convinced...don?t throw more sand in the eyes of people that can read you loud and clear...and this conversation is definitely over...as I said think whatever you like.

If you make claims about the world that are not verifiable even in principle. It is a pretty good guess that those claims are metaphysical claims.

...Regarding your obvious last comment in the previous post I suppose this applies to you...

...if you are in the pure field of speculation, and at least in half of your posts you don?t seem to, moderate your tone when you use words like the logical conclusion of this and that, or, I?m absolutely certain that, or even to claim that something is an evident logical possibility, and so on, because definitely there are many "unknowebles" to consider and they are as old as Man, and probably unanswerable too...

I guess the best you could say, and should, not that you have taken it on consideration anyway, is that you believe in such and such, for such and such reason, but that was hardly what you have been doing here, on the contrary, you addressed several remarks on other participants as stupid questions,

to which you gave stupid answers besides other Christmas presents that were on your agenda like not being mean or other similar nonsense...plus, hiding in supposed technicality?s is hardly of any interest if not to prove something or to clarify a theory, but none on both accounts...

this recurrent use of Science is a resource to often called to the table for someone that seems only to be exploring ideas...simplicity is of essence to clarify on such dark subjects, but once more you never look on that...

last but not least, finally you play the victim when someone decides to confront your ignorance and lack of proper upbringing with the adequate words !

If i claim that modal realism is true, and that there are disjointed realities. I suppose they are metaphysical claims. I do believe in them.





Let me help you in some of the logics:

If i say " If A, then B", then it is not the case that i commit to A, or B.

I i say "The assumption A can be rejected"; this does not commit me to not-A.



Remember what you said about disjointed realities are impossible. I disagree. where did i say you are stupid? I don` t understand why you are so personal about it.





In the replies i had with you, i did bring in different ideas, but that is related to the issue. For example, if you believe "disjointed realities is impossible", then all i can show is that "modal realism is possible". Do you think i am being complicated?





I don` t use science just because i like to. I do it in reply to your inquiry on "energy operators", and "entangled worlds". If you bring in science, then i will match you at your game. If you find it confusing, then don` t bring in things you don` t know.





I do like to talk with you. It is like a rat chasing a piece of cheese.

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 11:00 PM ----------

I feeling you need some help, so i will given you the main point in this thread.

Read it again, and again if you have to.

I assert that:

1. Disjointed worlds are logically possible.

By this i mean:

2. Two worlds are disjointed if and only if the two worlds do not have any
spatial-temporal, nor causal relationship with one another.

Another point is that by asserting 1 does not commit me to the actual existence of logical possible disjointed worlds.

You disagree with 1, and everything else is history.


______________________________________________________________


I bring in "multiverse levels" because you bring in the question of:

2. worlds that repeat itself.


2 is clearly falses if multiverse level 1 is true, and the "worlds" in 1 repeats itself.

_____________________________________________________________

I bring in "level 4 multiverse", and "modal realism" to show that 1 is true. That is to say, "disjointed worlds are logically possible".


______________________________________________________________

This is independent of my replies:

I do believe in Modal realism, multiverse level 4, and principle of fecundity.
They are all similar claims about the nature of reality. They are metaphysical claims. I think there are good reason in support of them, but such reason have no bearing on statement 1, and 2.

_______________________________________________________________

In the future, it is help to

*know precisely what is being discussed. This means knowing the precise statement.

Another point is that by asserting 1 does not commit me to the actual existence of logical possible disjointed worlds.

The question I have brought to you was simple:
Do you have any good reason besides the mere possibility to believe such waste of energy and "resources" is necessary, or probable ?

Obviously the possibility remains until some Law shows otherwise, but that was not the Heart of the matter was it ?

...If you think this question is of no importance, think again, because this question to my view, is the heart of the matter for the basic elegance that a theory is supposed to have, specially if it comes as a Metaphysical claim...

I know it does n?t, its hard to believe you suppose I don?t, then you ask were are the insults, there?s simply no words to comment...what I did was confronting your possibility with good reason, and just that...a theory may or may not to be a good reason...it may be, in the case if it explains it, and with it brings up belief, eventually justification if it is sound, or if it comes to be proven, and then explanation or purpose as to be searched in it...so, who was not paying attention ? BASING ALL THAT IN INFINITY IS AT THE VERY LEAST FAR-FETCHED for a good reason...its just a possibility in a model, nothing more.

One world is described by a theory.

Two worlds is governed by a different theory.

Once more you did n?t get what I said, so like this is hard to sustain a civilized conversation...I was referring to the elegance of the Theory of disjointed Reality?s, and not to the theory/s that governs them...

".. require infinite conceptions of Space and Energy which is also questionable possibility...simple !"

...I?m not asserting that such possibility is disproved, but only asserting that there is no good reason so far to have it...Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity...

I edited the previous post for clarification, read again...

hard to understand ?

...and if in principle such "set of reality?s" (which actually it is just one Reality) should have a common function,

repeating themselves would be ultimately plausible for a bigger purpose, maximizing potential a bit like numbers are made of one?s, but without this link, they ( the set of Reality?s) would be a pure waste of resources...

Your facts are wrong, and anything you say so far is unrelated to * warrant me to say. Why is it so hard to understand for you?

Again, you have problems. What "one function"?

Why would disjointed worlds need to maximize something?
Again, unrelated to *.

the need to amplify the number of possibilities (complexification) implies a necessary common goal, a function to both worlds, therefore obviously a relation between them...whatever this function might be, I am not asserting what, but that such is necessary for maximizing resources like in set theory...

its answered...
Why to believe in a "system" of worlds more complex, and above all unrelated, with no common goal ? only for the possibility ? keep it simple, is Occam?s razor idea...

How many times do you want me to say it? Don ` t use words you don` t understand! Set theory got nothing to do with "maximize resources", and "amplify the number of possibilities (complexification)" got nothing to do with *.
* does not commit to how the worlds are generated, or that there is a goal. What is so hard for you to understand?

There might be 2 sets:

1 - The set of worlds that repeat one another.
2 - The set of worlds that don?t repeat one another.

In each case there must be an explanation

A necessary common link...

You are the one who actually does not get anything.

This is laughable.

* does not commit to worlds that repeat. You can have two worlds that are different, but do not repeat. Two disjointed worlds don` t have to repeat at all.

Not every question has an explanation. There are some facts that are brute facts. e.g Fundamental equations in physics do not have explanations in terms of more fundamental equations.

Here is a little set theory for you. For elements of a set S, there is at least a property P such that for every element x in S, x has property P.

If P is the property that worlds repeat, then there is only one set.

If -p is another property, then there is another set.


* does not implies that disjointed worlds have a common property P, or -P.
Again, you manage to avoid *, and not understanding anything.

You are wrong every single time from page 1 to page 14. Don` t even say i don` t get it.

I don?t said they have, I said they might repeat because without a link to relate to each other they would be tr.

anscendent to each other, thus not knowing what the other one is doing, consequently they might end up repeating each other for no purpose...

if there is repeatability between worlds, that, must be necessary for some purpose..

..and yes this is far more elegant then to assert it might be other wise only for the sake of chance.

Agreed. And this is why there must be a final set of all sets.

As you said, the common property is that in each case they form a set....

and I state that sets must have reasons to be sets in real world whatever that means...thus having a link

I may be, at times, less accurate as I am not by far a mathematician I give you that, but that does not mean that what I say its wrong just for the reason that my tools might be different...

* is about logical possibilities for disjointed worlds. * does not commit to what each world might, nor might not do. There is no goal that each world tries to achieve( I already said this). A World do not need to sneak a peak at another world to achieve a goal. If they could, then they would not be disjointed.

* does not commit to a link. There is nothing logical necessary about a link that connects two worlds. This means, neither worlds need to "know" what the other is doing.

If there are repeated disjointed worlds, then this does not at all mean there is a reason for the repeat. Like i said before, and something you fail to get. fundamental equations in physics don ` t have reasons in terms of more fundamental equations. Fundamental equations are brute facts of a particular world. Similarly, if disjointed worlds repeat, then it is a brute fact that they repeat.

Don` t tell me a particular theory is elegant, or not. You don ` t know a thing about physics, and you are telling me which theory is elegant, or which is not? Know your place.

Don ` t say things you obvious don` t know. In axiomatic set theory, there is no universal set. There is no "set of all sets".

Is this a joke? The common property is that each element in a set has the common property. Each element can be a set according to set theory.

Do you have problems reading. I just wrote that * does not commit oneself to believe that there is a common property for each worlds. Each world don` t have to share a single property at all.:nonooo:

My advice to you is: focus on the precise thesis statement. The thesis statement is *. I affirm * is true, and you disagree. Each time, you manage to bring in things you don` t know, and hope to impress me, while what you ought to do is to focus on *.