Strange

Nope. No mention of time there. Indeed. No one could seriously believe this.

That is just nonsense. I can't think of anything else to say.

Ignoring the irrelevant (and slightly silly) fact that it takes time to read it, it is a declarative statement that defines a fixed relationship. The same is true of much of mathematics - unless it explicitly includes time (or some other changing variable).

There are a large number of such research projects (all under the general heading of "quantum gravity"). I am not familiar with this one but there is also "causal dynamical triangulation", "loop quantum gravity", various types of string theory and so on. All of these suggest some lower-level structure out of which space-time emerges at the large scale. All of these will simply move your question from "what is the medium of space-time made of?" to "what are the simplexes/loops/strings made of?" And the answer is: nothing. They are all purely mathematical models. So none of them will satisfy you ...

Is Pythagoras' theorem dynamical? Does it include time?

The infant brain is not a completely blank slate. It has some level of model hardwired, which is then built on as it develops. I would love to see some evidence that the human brain can do something that is not computable.

Unless it was programmed to do that.

The scary time will be when it loses a game and says, "Best of three?"

Yep! I am very glad I no longer have to deal with it.

It can take 3 to 6 months to get an initial response (confirmation of filing). The patent is published after 18 months. The patent examiner should give their first examination report between 9 and 18 months after filing. You then respond to this (usually explaining why it they should not have rejected it!) The whole process can take several years.

Che bello. Sono molto geloso! Good point. I was thinking too locally!

What are the units in these sizes?

I think that modelling is always an approximation and the only way we can model anything (from the behaviour of a transistor through an entire microprocessor to simulations of the evolution of the universe -- all of which are done with amazing success) is by using abstraction. In other words, you don't model an entire processor at the level of transistors, nor the entire universe at the level of atoms. Correct. I don't think so. It would have passed through and left things as they were before - like a ripple on the surface of a pond.

Numerology? What are the units in these sizes?

As the CMB is a black body spectrum, it contains a very wide range of frequencies, including those you mention. http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_intensity.html Do you expect there to be peaks at these frequencies? If so, what sort of amplitude do you predict? Note that the deviations from a perfect black body are very, very small (less than 50 parts per million) so your predictions of the size of these peaks need to be extremely precise to be testable. Why don't you check?

I had to laugh when I saw a calculation (relating to the Andromeda galaxy, I think) done to a precision 30 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length.

People assume that because there are two doors there is a 50:50 chance. I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated.

It might have some relevance to the philosophy or psychology forums. I can't see any connection to physics.

Really? Oh, apparently not.

That isn't relevant to a mathematical proof.

No one is saying that "stuff" is the source of space-time. Maybe it is better to think of space-time as a sort of background that "stuff" exists in. (And which can be affected by the stuff in it.) (Although I think "background" might have some specific connotations as a technical term in physics.)

I agree completely. We may be decades, or even centuries (maybe even millennia) from actually implementing any such thing.

Good point. You can also patent designs (e.g. of toys, etc.) I have no experience of either of these areas. Indeed. My understanding is that it has to involve transformation of concrete "things" from one form to another. So not general algorithms, for example.

I don't think it acts as the source of space-time, but it does affect the geometry of space-time.

Neither. I am suggesting that 1. brain function does produce consciousness 2. there is (currently) no reason to think that the brain can do anything that a computer can't. As such, I see no reason to think that a computer cannot reproduce all brain functions, including consciousness.