geordief

I had ,,hopefully a layman's idea of formal logic Can it be viewed as there being one kind of logic that begets other kinds? One logic "to rule them all" so to speak or are you perhaps going to say that all we have is models?

Oh ,I see positive could be false and negative could be true(that it?) Or would positive/negative be neither true nor false? Already out of my depth ,but (perhaps off topic) is there any relationship I wonder between fuzzy logic and quantum computing? Fuzzy logic sounds to me like software and quantum computing like hardware. Would they be well suited if so?

Thanks ,but I have an aversion to computer studies I only mentioned computing because it seems to be joined at the hip with the concept of logic. I have come across the idea that there are some questions (or problems)that could only be answered if the universe was converted into a giant computer

Can it reasonably be said that the main limit is that logic can only show a negative and never a positive? If so are there any other limits?(computing capacity for one?)

No,I knew that Markus .You told us that but I still did a search on it.That is how I learn things sometimes. Sometimes,I may even think of a concept and just look it up to see if anyone has thought of it before(nothing of consequence, maybe even just a sequence of words)

I did a search on "gravitational fluid"(I do that as almost as a routine for something I don't understand ) and there was this mini video No idea what it is supposed to be. BTW ,is there any possibility that DM could be clouds of mini black holes formed in the very early days after BB?

Does this idea of yours make any predictions or any potential predictions? Can you take it any further in any way even though as you say this potential state is not computable even in principle?

Isn't the BB at T+ 10^-43 seconds? There would have been a time before then,wouldn't there? If you are talking about T=0 seconds then I think I see your point. Would that mean no beginning as well as no "prior"? Or is T=O just something we can say nothing about since the model breaks down then?

Oh yes,I did realize that I was just putting it out there,if "it" amounted to anything at all.

If Markus was right and DM was an emergent phenomenon would it by the same token be "observer related"? Seems absurdly improbable. (unless I have absurdly misunderstood,as per usual)

How is there no space?Does any network not presuppose distances between members,and a temporal ordering? But yes the passage from the very small and discrete to the large and seemingly continuous seems apt to be described as an "emergence",although it it is not "puff like" instantaneous since quantum effects persist into very large structures

Dark side of the Black Hole

A sort of "Cher effect"?

Maybe endless amusements for dolphins? Or to cook fusilli pasta?

That's a very inefficient way to turn a handle OK ,first sunny day we get I will look for the caustic light light caustics on my milky coffee. Thom was the name of our PE teacher.Maybe he was French.

Would the light find a way round ?(I have listened to a fair few Al Khalili documentaries so I know my stuff)

Maybe if the right circumstances applied.It could be entirely reproducible (my preference) and there would be a formal connection between the preceding and the subsequent arrangement. Obviously I am imagining. Wonder what your particle pairs are. How fundamental?(I mean what happens when they are more fundamental?)

Is entanglement the only one? @studiot"All my examples have this characteristic, but life doesn't." Can you say that?

So ,when system goes into less than 3 components does any related phenomenon go into "reverse emergence" And by the way(or an elephant in the room?) ,is life itself a prime example of emergence ?

Might have been an auto spelling malfunction? (would "whether" have made any sense,even if cryptic?)

Seems a good idea .There must be theories.I wonder if they are mathematics driven or physics driven.? I am new to this subject and was interested to learn that both Feynman and Hawking had ideas before String theory showed up. Can their ideas still have any applicability since the jury still seems to be out?

Mary?(She was a big one)

Hopefully will get through the article in time.I like the bit where they are supposedly disappointed to have achieved their aim without needing to have solved quantum gravity as part of the process. Also like the comments at the bottom.(they help me to assimilate the article as they are much easier to read!! )

I would but I sprained my left ankle yesterday coincidentally a couple of hours before I was due to take a neighbour into the doctor for the exact same ailment. A case of the crippled driving the crippled.That and Storm Barra has made for a couple of evenings and afternoons in front of the fire with legs up.