Let me try this. Do you agree that the correct ToE must imply QM? If yes, here is a falsifiable prediction: no correlations should exceed the Tsirelson bound. Observe them and QM no longer describes nature.

How does this square away with: "not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory!"?

If you remove "conceivably", then you get your tautology: I think therefore I am. If from "A implies A" you get many-worlds, this is simply incorrect. Why? Because this implies that all other QM interpretations should either be inconsistent or should not exist. Well, they do exist, and they are not inconsistent. Show me the money. Show me in any interpretation you want (Bohmian, transactional, consistent history, etc) where they are inconsistent. If you manage to do that this would be a very big deal!

The correct ToE, as I have shown, does imply QM! If you observe something that tells you that some QM2 does not describe nature, then you did obviously NOT have the correct ToE, but some wrong ToE2 (which predicts QM2).

The rest is nothing to do with my essay. Please do not paint straw men but stick to what I actually wrote about. I am in no mood to be told to show "money" about claims that are not mine.

Dear Dr. Vongehr,

Could you please explain to me why you thought that my comment about the real Universe was inappropriate?

You are I hope aware that suppression of the truth is unethical.

Eagerly awaiting your answer,

Joe Fisher

    Dear Professor Vongehr,

    You titled your essay: "Description Relativity on Mathematics versus Physics:

    The desired Theory of Everything from Metaphysics."

    Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

    Warm regards,

    Joe Fisher

    IMPORTANT CORRECTION! IMPORTANT CORRECTION!

    Also a comment further below indicates that an important sentence early on (page 2) is sadly misleading. The sentence "The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory" has the "conceivably" modifying "observed yet also refute the theory," not just "observed" alone. Please simply replace the "conceivably" by "possibly," because this directly refers to Lee Smolin's "could be possibly observed and would then refute the theory" quoted immediately before. The "possibly" only modifies "observable" alone. This correction preserves the meaning (no correction of the meaning is necessary), just without my misleading failure of expressing it more abstractly (thus confusing with rather more German than English grammar - sorry about that). So to be entirely clear, the sentence should read: "The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be possibly observed yet also refute the theory"

    22 days later

    tis-the-season-for-a-tithe?::www.youtube.com/results?search_query=I+am+your+leader+nicki+minaj+Rick+Ross+cam_ron

    Dear Sascha,

    I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

    All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

    Joe Fisher

    2 years later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #15

    We have used this tricks many times and i had been successful always to get clash royale free gems whenever you want.

    8 months later

    Listen to Free Internet FM Radio Live Online Streaming. Enjoy live radio, music online. Bookmark favorite radio stations. Listen to the top-rated and most popular radio stations from all over the world.

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my users would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thank you! TV Live Online Streaming

    4 months later
    6 days later
    Write a Reply...