Phi for All

Which is actually much easier than making up this garbage that has no meaning. What exactly can you predict using, "The universe is made of only one string"? It's so vague that it's ridiculous. "The string is sentient" is equally pointless and ignorant. I can't believe they're saying this. This is called Begging the Question. You can't assume your "universe = string" exists and ask what's above it. You have to persuade us that you're right and science is wrong.

What exactly was conscious right after cosmic expansion began?

! Moderator Note OK, you obviously don't know how to read. I'm recommending that we ban you since you can't be bothered to support your bizarre claims.

! Moderator Note OK, let's put it bluntly. NOBODY cares what you think, we only care about what you can support with evidence. So far you've just made a bunch of assertions that anybody could make. Evidence and sound reasoning are the only things that might persuade us to take you seriously. Read some of the other threads so you can see what I mean. Otherwise, I'm going to ban you for breaking our rules.

! Moderator Note Advertising your products is NOT allowed here. Thread closed, don't open another on this subject.

! Moderator Note Moved from Homework Help to General Philosophy.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing, and not allowed in this discussion forum. If you aren't willing to have a conversation aimed at helping further our understanding of science, then discussion isn't for you. We're prepared to support the statements we make with evidence, but all you have is waving hands, insistence, and incredulity. If you want to persuade us that you may be onto something, you need to do more than jump up and down and insist that accumulated human knowledge has been wrong all along and only you see it. Please do better.

! Moderator Note Ah, a third option. The Trash!

Enjoy your discussion.

Observation? Study? The fact that you don't use the word "logic" in a meaningful way? Definitions require useful meaning or they only serve to confuse.

Really? I'm not a master, but I know you've already contradicted first-order logic with this statement. How can you be a master of mathematical logic when you don't know the maths? And you don't talk as if you know philosophical logic, so what exactly are you a master of? You could very well be an evolutionary miracle sent to help us develop better ways of dealing with life on this planet, but you won't be helping if you don't learn what we already consider to be our best explanations for various phenomena. You can't think outside the box without knowing the tools inside the box, even with your capabilities. And wrong is what you are, until you can explain away the obvious contradictions. Being wrong is NEVER funny, but it is human. MOST ideas are wrong.

How could it? It's clearly based on the limited science you've allowed yourself to learn, and you seem gleefully impervious to learning the mainstream explanations others are offering you. Your ideas make sense to you alone, and it's been pointed out that many points are flawed. It's like you're claiming you could explain how mixing blue and red paint makes yellow paint if you were only given time for your whole idea to emerge. We have models that give us the astonishing accuracy to land a craft on an asteroid millions of miles away, based on the explanations mainstream science has developed. Your diagram seems to just fill in gaps in your knowledge with things that make more sense to you, and the best methodologies tell us that's a really bad thing to do.

You're wrong. Formal logic has strict meanings in science. Logic is applicable to maths, and also to philosophy. Both have specific meanings and even their own notation. You've misinterpreted logic to mean "this makes more sense to me". Logic isn't what Mr Spock from Star Trek was talking about. That's called "reasoning". This is another bit that makes no sense. There are plenty of rules in quantum physics. Logic has NOTHING to do with entanglement. I think what you really mean is that quantum mechanics are not "intuitive". Things don't necessarily behave the way we're used to in the macro world. You lost me again. Which two things are the same, illogic and logic, or quantum and "physical"? Be aware you used the word "exact". I, for one, would appreciate it if you'd leave out the parts of your ideas you haven't supported yet. You don't get to assume your "one string" concept is correct here.

! Moderator Note No, no more threads until you've established some kind of meaning for this concept of "Consciousness Hue" in your other thread. Let's not build on a shaky foundation anymore. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note Please stop right here and clarify why you think consciousness existed in the early universe. Focus on that one thing alone and try to convince us it existed. No more word salad, no more tangents, no more vagueness ("partway"?! "almost instantly"?!), and no more made up terms. If you can't do that, discussing your idea is meaningless.

Such a shame you've based so much on misunderstanding! Breaks the heart.

! Moderator Note I can move this to Religion or to Speculations, but it can't stay in any mainstream section. I don't think you can support this idea well enough to satisfy our rules for Speculation, and you can't make any predictions with "the string is everything". It's not something I want to inflict on the Religion section either. Science isn't about making things up because they make more sense than what you were taught. Theory is the best it gets, the most successful methodology for making sure we explain how the universe behaves. Can you support any of these ideas with evidence or a mathematical model?

It looks like you filled in gaps in your knowledge with stuff you made up rather than studying what the giants before you discovered. And there are some common, pop-science mistakes too. There is no "space time fabric", for instance. Spacetime is a description of the geometry involved in the continuum of spatial and temporal dimensions. Consciousness hues? We don't even have a working definition of consciousness, but you're applying yours to physics? And we simply don't know anything about the starting point of the BB, other than it was extremely hot and dense. And what kind of magic wand are you waving with the "quantization beyond the standard model" part? It's not clear what any of this has to do with leaving a black hole. Please explain what your diagram means. Take baby steps so we know you're on firm ground before taking the next.

Are you focused on how common it is for a reason? If it's common enough, do you think you can ignore it? When you're bleeding, is frequency among the population more important than hemostasis? You asked a lot of non-doctors, none said they had nosebleeds, and from that you came to the WRONG conclusion that dry air and nose picking shouldn't be the cause of nosebleeding, when they're actually the two most common causes of nosebleeding. I just don't understand why you don't go to the doctor again. Who cares how common it is? It's happening to you and it probably shouldn't. The doctor has records of what they did before, and may have a better protocol in place these days. Your blood and your time are worth more than this. If it's causing you stress, see a doctor, please. I'm concerned about your health.

The Lebombo Bone was found in Africa and is over 43,000 years old. It has 29 notches carved into it that are thought to have been used to count lunar phases. Whatever it was used for, it's clear it was measuring a count of something, basic math. The Ishango Bone was also found in Africa, and is about 20,000 years old. It's believed to be a tally stick. This generalization is offensive both racially and reasonably. You think absolutely no person from China had anything to do with the advancement of mathematics throughout history?! Why "think" about it when you can do some meaningful research about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mathematics

Great! So it shouldn't be that hard for you to see that, unless we're somehow able to use ALL methods of observation available to us (and probably some we don't know about YET), we should never assume we know what's really going on. Physics observes how nature behaves, and it's counterproductive to the scientific method to claim what you're observing is Truth or Reality. We aren't looking for answers, we're looking for the best supported explanations. That's how theories can continue to improve.

As others, including you, have noted, when you observe a phenomenon, you only know what can be observed by the methodologies you're using, and NONE of those methods could possibly tell you "how things really are". Observing tells you about certain behaviors, but doesn't tell you anything about reality. Watch a professional magician, and tell me your observations reflect what's really happening.

Apparently so: https://publications.iadb.org/en/experimental-evidence-use-biomethane-rum-distillery-waste-and-sargassum-seaweed-alternative-fuel

I think this stance is flawed in a big way. "How things really are" is quite different than "what we observe in nature". You're looking for proofs and truths and reality in a system that reveres theory for its resistance to deception and subjectivity.

At the same time? In the OP, you said there was five years between. I tried to tell you the problem with asking many people who aren't doctors in my first post. Did it help you to ask that many non-doctors? Did the one doctor you saw help you?