EmDriver

But how can the universe's particles lack spin-down and spin-up prior to their measurement then?

Oh good point. Waveform as in superposition/ quantum superposition.

I'm saying that dialetheism is true because the of the universe being (relatively real and not real).

Do you mean a one particle complex wavefunction or a real classical field or both?

Same as above. We could define it even further I guess. Conceiving of something and proving something are 2 different things. To prove something, it must first be conceived of. δι- di ἀλήθεια alḗtheia (dialetheism) is when something can be true and not true at the same time. A true statement where it's exclusion (contradiction) is also true. If something is (relatively real, but not locally real), it is also (real and not real). Because we can observe the state of the waveform and the state of particles this makes it different from gravity for example. We can observe the effects of gravity but we cannot observe gravity directly. Entanglement entropy actually rolls off the tongue quite nicely, I like it!

I believe so. It is true we perceive semantics slightly differently then back in 600 BCE due to differences in technology and culture. Through syntax and semantics translation, it ends up being the same thing. Siddhartha Gautama (the scholar and philosopher) was using the computational power of his brain, and did not have computational power of the technology we use today. When he said the universe is real and not real ends up being the same as us saying the universe is relatively real, and not locally real. We are defining what type of real here (new information). The semantic and syntax of the words relatively and locally can translate into many other things if we wish within our own language, such as locally->3-D and relatively->4-D->Space-Time for example. I find that a philosopher from BCE times talking about the universe being real and not real is highly interesting considering what we have proven. His perception of dialetheism being true (which was proven to exist in truth when we proved it through quantum entanglement) also solves several paradoxes such as how to define a set. The more recent way some have tried to solve it was by changing their perception of how to define a set. Because the universe has been proven to be real and not real means that something can be (true and false)->(real and not real) at the same time. When we look at the languages on our planet and the six different word orders we use, we see that one of the modern way to solve this paradox is also a subjective truth. How to define a set is subjective depending on the perception of the observer.

Your right. From my perception though I am combining the physics proof of quantum entanglement (which proves the universe isn't locally real, only relatively real) with the scholar and philosopher who figured that out back in 600ish BCE. He didn't have the technology to prove the universe was real and not real back then. That didn't happen until over 2500 years later or so. Oh yea, check this out too: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2021/CP/D0CP05781A#!divAbstract Quite interesting if you ask me.

How so?

2n N = ∞

For anything to exist in the observable universe, it must be real and not real. Why is this true but not (true and false)? The observable universe is real and not real because of quantum entanglement and the waveform. The universe is not applying values to it's particles unless an observer is perceiving that part of the universe. The observer makes the universe real from their perception of the universe. Quantum entanglement is the universe's way of creating new information. When particles are entangled in waveform, this allows for the function of creating new information when the waveform collapses. What is a subjective truth? A subjective truth is real to an observer who perceives that it is real, but another observer with a different perception may perceive it as false. Both of these perceptions cannot be proven to either observer. Why is this true? This is true because the observable universe is real and not real. Why does Gravity and Space-Time not collapse into a particle? Why aren't these made up of atoms and particles? Why can't we see them directly? Gravity and Space-Time are unique in the universe. Their effects are observable anywhere in perceivable space of our universe so they can't be false. Their effects become real and not real in observable space. Gravity and Space-Time still occur when their are no observers to perceive the effects of Gravity and Space-Time so they can't be a subjective truth. Light is still moving across the universe when no observers are looking at that part of the universe. Therefore Gravity and Space-Time exist in truth but are not (real and not real).

For sure, I try to think of all the variables of things in my spare time. It would be amazing if we could make an electrical circuit with 6 base states in the same amount of space as a circuit using 4 base states. Theorizing entanglement in an electrical circuit would probably take a physicist and a micro-engineer though. AKA quantum computers.

Which of course leads my mind to think of a 6th dimensional state: 6) A state when the of the state of the registers and the state of the memory are changing to a new state at the same time while entangled!

Hey Genady, I was doing some studying on our DNA but was curious what you thought or knew about my findings. So our DNA have four base pairs (C, T, G, and A). Then we also have chemical flags that bind to our C pair referred to as epigenetic information, adding a second layer of information to our DNA. Then I discovered that the Hydrogen atoms that bind our DNA together can become waves via proton tunneling, which can cause our DNA to be in multiple locations at the same time. This can cause the Hydrogen atom from one strand of DNA to become entangled with another strand of DNA for a short period of time. This can lead to permanent mutation if our DNA replicates itself while it is entangled. This publication from 2021 talks about it: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2021/CP/D0CP05781A#!divAbstract With the four base pairs, the epigenetic information, quantum tunneling, and quantum entanglement: would that make our DNA have 7 dimensions?

Choosing not to vote can have a large chain reaction. We are now at -1 vote. Someone else thinks, they didn't vote because it won't make a difference, so why should I? We are now at -2 votes. There are ways we can make the process better though which has been discussed by a couple of famous philosophers, Socrates and Plato. "Democracy is only as good as the education that surrounds it". Plato also discuses the ego by saying people will make poor choices due to our selfish natures. A selfish nature will gravitate towards a candy salesman. Pre college in my country at least is still largely based around the factory school model. It is designed to help people who are getting minimum wage jobs straight out of high school. Perhaps the best chain reaction we can do, is try to create a new school model. How we could improve our selfish natures is much more complex. A politician's main priority is money. To improve this we would need a system that did not revolve around economics.

I feel like the title is overly anchoring. I think an 'understanding of all' should occur at the end of that flow. Our reality is a perception of the truth. If one only sees truth, then they no longer have a reality. How many sides does a circle have with an infinite number of dimensions? We subjectively perceive the same thing until we see the truth.

Reminds of the difference between a function and an object.

I like symbolically interpreting this. Don't force the past to determine your future (Halo Effect). Never stop thinking. The mind must believe in something or it does not want to exist (Godot).

Yea it's possible. This morning I found an amazing abstract electronic circuit design that would utilize 5 dimensions: https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033203. When electrons are shot into the waveform, their accessing the 5-dimensional map of the possible locations the waveform can convert into a particle. We have at least 5 dimensions in our universe.

I don't know, I have an image of something like a flip-flop in my mind but I need to plot it out on paper to understand it. I'll see what I can come up with.

I guess that would apply then to when the waveform is converting to a particle and vice versa as well. All the possible (hidden) variables could be accessed during that 5 dimensional state.

There's some theoretical mathematics we could do here perhaps utilizing the speed of light in a vacuum and how long it takes a particle collision to convert energy. There could be information accessible in a 5 dimensional state we could access for only a minuscule fraction of a second.

We actually get at least 5 dimensions from 2 base states. 5) a state when the state of the registers and the state of the memory are replacing their current states at the same time. Depending on how fast your computer was, we could only have access to information that was stored in 5 dimensions for a few picoseconds.

Quantum magnetism involves elements that are capable of strongly attracting or repulsing others below certain temperatures, but do not have an electrical charge. These elements are known as ferromagnets. It has to do with the way that atoms are spinning which create a magnetic effect (where my knowledge steeply drops off at). Utilizing this concept something such as this could be possible providing 2 way transportation at very minimal energy: ---> <--- Earth ----Superconductor ---------------------------------- Superconductor---- Moon ---> Space <---

How I turn Knowledge -> Understanding Sometimes I perceive what I am exposed to in reverse and must flip it to have an understanding. My execution of how to do this was reversed, but as swansont mentioned, what I was conceiving would be magnetic propulsion. Being able to propel very large objects with magnetic propulsion in a timely manner through space would open up so many possibilities. So I should of said I don't have a strong understanding of quantum magnetism, but it is highly interesting to me.

If I were to be more concise, figure out how to get it to work in higher temperatures. I would love to read someone describe: what is quantum magnetism (because I don't have a lot of knowledge on it but it is highly interesting to me).