Earlier quoted context omitted.
*an empirical theory. I can certainly prove things about, say, addition.
if you mean you can prove 2+2==4, it's actually tautology: | | + | | == | | | |
Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
91–96 of 96 posts
Re: Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
#92"...bootstrappers find that many different spin-0 particles are possible." Is that a typo, or is it really possible to have spin -0?
I think with some equations there is a discontinuity at zero, like tan, but it still makes sense to talk about what happens asymptotically approaching zero and then it matters from which side you approach zero, hence positive and negative zero.
Re: Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the Douglas Adams quote: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
Anthropic Principle: "a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, and that there is hence a survivorship bias." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Re: Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anthropic Principle: "a philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it, and that there is hence a survivorship bias." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I concluded this early in my life, which makes me a minority amongst beliefers. I believe in God and that creatìon shows occasional traces of his genious, but I don't think they are unambigous enough to warrant the christian god as a necessary conclusion.
Re: Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I concluded this early in my life, which makes me a minority amongst beliefers. I believe in God and that creatìon shows occasional traces of his genious, but I don't think they are unambigous enough to warrant the christian god as a necessary conclusion.
I feel similar. Although, I don't believe in God so much as a belief in some form of intelligent design. Or I guess, the belief that existence has some kind of reason, and hopefully, my conscious mind does too.
I would be Buddhist if I would not be christian, but I am glad I can be christian. If what I believe is true, then boy are we lucky!
Re: Simple Rules ‘Bootstrap’ the Laws of Physics
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think with some equations there is a discontinuity at zero, like tan, but it still makes sense to talk about what happens asymptotically approaching zero and then it matters from which side you approach zero, hence positive and negative zero.
tan does not have a discontinuity at zero. |x|/x does, as does 1/x. tan's is at pi/2 in particular and (n+1/2)pi in general.
tan(π(x + 0.5)) = ∞~, x ∃ ℤ
(π on my screen doesn't look much like greek pi.)