A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

I'm not going to throw quantifiers together if you can't even handle normal English sentences.

I can handle quantifiers just fine, thanks.

Originally Posted by But

What is asking question (1)? I'll help you: Am I a composite system described by a state function?

This still isn't a proof. I asked for a proof, not a series of questions. Let me know when you have a proof ready.

[But]

OK. LOL. (psi) exists. (psi) is the universal wavefunction.

PS: The rest is just ordinary shit like path integrals.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

OK. LOL. (psi) exists. (psi) is the universal wavefunction.

PS: The rest is just ordinary shit like path integrals.

That isn't a natural deduction proof for us being reborn over and over again. Do you not know what a ND proof is?

[But]

LOL. Let me quickly google it.

------------- statement 1
(psi exists) true

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

LOL. Let me quickly google it.

------------- statement 1
(psi exists) true

Still not a ND proof for us being born over and over again.

So far you're doing no better than Peacegirl.

[But]

What would you accept as a definition of "being born again"? Evolution described by a unitary time evolution operator? Like exp(-i*A*t), where A is the adjacency matrix of some graph consisting of distinct states, i is an imaginary unit like the square root of -1, and t is a real parameter ("time")?

[But]

I'm not assuming the reality of 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension, by the way, because I don't think that's the most useful picture.

[But]

Let 4-dimensional spacetime (A. Einstein et al.) be described by 2 "space" dimensions and 2 "time" dimensions.

[But]

Enter quaternions and complex pointer states and yawn, Spacemonkey has fled the thread, so I'm spending the rest of the night working on the Higgs mechanism and a cathode ray tube, in no particular order, until he comes back.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Enter quaternions and complex pointer states and yawn, Spacemonkey has fled the thread, so I'm spending the rest of the night working on the Higgs mechanism and a cathode ray tube, in no particular order, until he comes back.

I'm still waiting for your promised proof.

[But]

Okay. Imagine that you're dying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Okay. Imagine that you're dying.

How about I save us both some time and just imagine that you're capable of presenting a proof, and then imagining that you've presented a good one. Kind of like what Peacegirl imagines with respect to her father.

[But]

Don't change the topic. What do you see?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Don't change the topic. What do you see?

I believe the topic was you providing a proof, and I'm still not seeing one.

[But]

Don't change the topic again. In the meantime, why don't you explain to me why I should use this exact form of "ND proof" you're talking about, put it in exactly the same form of "ND proof" you're talking about, then think about Herrn Gödel and his pesky arguments about why that doesn't really work, and I watch your brain explode in real time on my Schlepptop.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Don't change the topic again.

I'm not. The topic was you providing a proof, which you're still not doing.

Originally Posted by But

In the meantime, why don't you explain to me why I should use this exact form of "ND proof" you're talking about...

You said you were going to construct a proof for me in a language I can understand, so I suggested predicate logic and natural deduction. Your response was, and I quote, "Why not, sounds good".

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not. The topic was you providing a proof, which you're still not doing.

Yawn. Me providing a proof is another topic than the proof. See Herrn Gödel again.

You said you were going to construct a proof for me in a language I can understand, so I suggested predicate logic and natural deduction. Your response was, and I quote, "Why not, sounds good".

I think it's not really possible. Do you know lambda calculus? Binding of identifiers? Environments? Why do I bother. Status report: Uncoupled vertical deflection coils from the cathode ray tube. Picture clearer now. Back to Higgs mechanism.

I'll help you. You see a bright light, immediately after the sheer terror when your subsystems try to keep up normal operation after some kind of organ failure. Your whole causal chain unfolds before the mirror of your own consciousness and you experience a phase shift. exp(i*phi), where i is some imaginary unit like the square root of -1, and exp is defined in the usual way in terms of a power series.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Yawn. Me providing a proof is another topic than the proof. See Herrn Gödel again.

I think it's not really possible. Do you know lambda calculus? Binding of identifiers? Environments? Why do I bother. Status report: Uncoupled vertical deflections coils from the cathode ray tube. Picture clearer now. Back to Higgs mechanism.

I'll help you. You see a bright light, immediately after the sheer terror when your subsystems try to keep up normal operation after some kind of organ failure. Your whole causal chain unfolds before the mirror of your own consciousness and you experience a phase shift. exp(i*phi), where i is some imaginary unit like the square root of -1, and exp is defined in the usual way in terms of a power series.

How is any of this even relevant to your stated goal of providing a proof for us being reborn in a language I can understand? Why did you agree to a form of proof that you don't even think is possible? I'll give you one last shot at providing an actual proof (i.e. at least something with premises, a conclusion, and identified rules of inference). After that I'll go back to asking Peacegirl. She doesn't actually make any more of an effort than you, but at least she's entertaining.

[thedoc]

Wow! and I thought Peacegirl was good at evasion, deflection, and providing non-answers to spacemonkeys questions. I guess we have a new contender for an abject lack of knowledge.

However I forget that some people post here just for a fight.

[But]

Wow. You really are a fucking idiot, Spacemonkey.

[But]

And wow No. 2, thedoc, you are even dumber. Sorry, but sometimes insults are necessary.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by But

Wow. You really are a fucking idiot, Spacemonkey.

Well that's definitely not a proof.

[But]

Okay, I'll try again.

(1) You, I, we, everything is some system in some state, described in the usual way by a state vector (I don't think you know what that is, but fuck it)

(2) Every change is accurately described by a unitary time evolution operator acting on that state, there is no objective collapse of this state function except in the subjective perception of an observer

and (3) that is the usual definition or description of what rebirth is in established texts of, say, Buddhist, Hindu or other theories.

(4) If I have to explain to you what a theory is in terms of ternary relations, I'll just give you the easy task of putting all the above in the "natural deduction" form of "reasoning", and then tell you to shove it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

And wow No. 2, thedoc, you are even dumber. Sorry, but sometimes insults are necessary.

And I don't think this qualifies either, but I could be wrong?

Weren't we proving something about 'But'.

[But]

Oh, and ape-man, go back to your machine shop classes and build Dr. Gatling's rotary barrel device for me, if you know how.