I need some positive reviews of my theory from different parts of the world. I'm not sure that is too much to ask. I think there's some room in the comments section.
Some modest approvals would be greatly appreciated. Something like, "I have read Spirals in Amber and the blog extensively and I can say without reservation that the theory is (insert word for game-changing theory) and that the author is one of the great minds of the post Sumerian world."
I don't really see where it's too much to ask.
I just need something for the beginning of the books or maybe the back cover.
One of the problems with the theory is that it reduces a complex universe to a simple algorithm. When you look at size, it's not such a big problem, but when you mine down to the details, your thoughts on reading this, the miracle of a flower, the act of painting something it becomes misleadingly suspicious.
It is also suspicious when you have to say that from any point of origin you'll end up with exactly our universe with exactly that thought, that flower and the painting in question. Impossible?
Pre-AuT physics deals with this using random movement, entropy and the like; but it also is hiding super symmetry behind excuses because there is no clear pre-AuT super symmetry; but it's there. It's the unwanted guest of logic which abhors predictability. Gods and Heisenbergs hang out together in this place. AuT just fills it and says, "You say unlikely? I say, 'what me worry?'"
The discussion of the formula features shows how the relatively simple algorithm quickly becomes complicated due to the multiple shifting parameters in coming to a solution with a rapidly increasing number of data points and particularly given the enormous number of calculations defining a quantum moment at the value of x in a universe at the stage of ours where x is an enormous number and pi is essentially solved at high concentration areas, like in the proximity of black holes and possible ct6 states.
One need only look at one's hands to question randomness.
Look at your hand or if you don't have one look at a friend's hand. It is pretty complicated. It does what you want it to do. There is no way that something like that should be right there at right this moment, possibly typing these words on this keyboard. But how does pre-AuT science predict the hand? Evolution relies on random chance.
Follow me here, this incredibly complicated chain of events defies Entropy, it's the opposite of entropy, it is one of an infinite choices to arrive at just these events and things at this time; but we say, ok, here it is. It's the type of argument used to put forward religion and from a non-man made religion standpoint its not the weakest argument I've ever heard.
But AuT says there is no randomness, that this is instead just a very complicated result from a simple algorithm changing according to a fairly complicated stacking process over trillions (not billions) of years where x has grown to such a large number that it cannot be easily interpreted.
It is one of the key proofs of AuT. Yes, we're pretty complicated, but we can almost see the super-symmetry behind what's happening around us.
You don't like what I'm doing, you think it takes too long. Well, hard to argue with that, but I'm not sure why the algorithm didn't give me certain advantages that would have rendered this rant unnecessary. If I'm wrong I'm just wasting the time you give me and if I'm right, I'm only human.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3wKzyIN1yk
No comments:
Post a Comment