Recent content by talanum1

  1. talanum1

    Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic.

    Unfortunately "B" is provable from "(B)-->--(C) (C)" if we allow left facing Attractor Introduction (A:AtI), and we shouldn't be able to. So we got to disallow it. But then we can also not prove "(notB)" from "(B)-->--(C) (notC)". We could disallow it and prove the latter by contraposition and...
  2. talanum1

    Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic.

    The axiom means: "B and B exist if and only if the empty structure exist and we reasoned through a logical singularity." Is it sound?
  3. talanum1

    Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic.

    They haven't done anything evil yet.
  4. talanum1

    Proof of "Axioms" of Propositional Logic.

    Wat if you define meaning of (B)->-( as the same meaning as (B), i.e. a structure "B" exists). The empty structure is always "false". I changed A:AA to: (B)->-( )->-(B) <> (_) ->0, to add an indication that we reasoned through a logical singularity.
  5. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    God created the Universe by coupling a singularity to a computer and then running the program of the Universe on it. Thus the computer is now linked to all of space. This is how space can calculate i.e. "think".
  6. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    If there is no down/up/W-minus state isn't your calculation tool then mistaken? You based your calculation on something non-physical. If the field smoothly changes, why can't you explain how? Again: a calculation must happen for space to decide whether to allow an interaction or not, what...
  7. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    As for the interaction happening at a single vertex: Feynmann diagrams are drawn with space on on axis and time on another, so we have an interaction that requires 1/infinity in both time and space. Since infinity is non-physical the Feynmann diagram is wrong! At the vertex you have to have...
  8. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    No, but I believe space thinks.
  9. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    One billiard ball colliding with another is a physical calculation. Same with an object reacting to a field.
  10. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    I need a South African organization name not American.
  11. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    What good would that do: I can't remember any of the happenings in the abductions. It does: how else is Nature to come to a decision to allow an interaction or not? If you say objects just responds to space and fields: that is still a computation.
  12. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    How does Nature mimic computation then?
  13. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    I'm claiming it is natural telepathy and real Aliens!
  14. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    Saying it doesn't exist because you can't explain it is like sweeping the dirt under the carpet.
  15. talanum1

    I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

    Of course it computes: particles with one set of momenta don't transform while the same type of particles with a different set of momenta does. This happens continuously.
See more
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X