• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do we have evidence in favor of the Multiverse?!

There is abundant evidence for the possibility of a multiverse, and the origin of our universe as a singularity, which has a documented natural explanation. I can follow this with references of recent research, but that is not the problem.

There is absolutely no evidence for any absolute beginning of anything in our physical existence, and a natural explanation has been demonstrated for the origin of our universe, It is the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' without evidence for any absolute beginning.

Can you provide any scientific references that falsify or demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe or our physical existence has an absolute beginning or an origin that is not natural? If you cannot the premise is justifiable rejected.

You must realize that these argument were formulated a long long time ago before modern science, and it was easier to accept the premises without the contemporary knowledge of math and science.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Can you provide any scientific references that falsify or demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe or our physical existence has an absolute beginning or an origin that is not natural?
In fact, I can do it. I have submitted the paper to a top journal in July, and still, it is being peer-reviewed, 3 months already. After acceptance and a couple of decades, we will fly to any distance like an UFO. I have found out, that Dark Matter is the invisible non-living matter.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
In fact, I can do it. I have submitted the paper to a top journal in July, and still, it is being peer-reviewed, 3 months already. After acceptance and a couple of decades, we will fly to any distance like an UFO. I have found out, that Dark Matter is the invisible non-living matter.

No you have not!!! Your article was severely flawed, actually rather bizarre, and did not address the question I presented.

Black Matter has not been demonstrated and falsified to exist. It is one of several possible descriptive explanations of what appears to be missing matter from the human perspective.

Again . . .

Can you provide any scientific references that falsify or demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe or our physical existence has an absolute beginning or an origin that is not natural?

I will go with the published research by three 2020 Nobel Prize winners in physics. I ahve and others have demonstrated that your above argument is bogus.

Still waiting . . .
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why then 3.5 months of ongoing peer-review, if I am STUPID like a bag of dust?

Apparently Again . . .

Can you provide any scientific references that falsify or demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe or our physical existence has an absolute beginning or an origin that is not natural?

I will go with the published research by three 2020 Nobel Prize winners in physics. I ahve and others have demonstrated that your above argument is bogus.

Still waiting . . .
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Colin McLarty, ``What does it take to prove Fermat's last theorem?
Grothendieck and the logic of number theory,''
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16(3), 359-377 (2010).

This is an amusing overview of some of the logical aspects of FLT.

To understand the context, however, we need to go over some concepts.

The theory of natural numbers using the Peano Axioms is usually called PA. It is devoted to describing the usual counting numbers (along with 0), 0,1,2,3,4,5,....

The next level up (well, for our purposes) is called Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory, ZFC. This theory talks about sets. But one of those sets is the set of natural numbers and everything that PA can prove about natural numbers can also be proved in ZFC. But, and this is important, there are *more* things that ZFC can prove about natural numbers than PA can. This is part of what Godel proved: there are true (provable in ZFC) things about natural numbers that cannot be proved in PA.

Another level up from ZFC involves looking at collections that are 'too big' to be sets. Such things are called proper classes and two very common axioms systems for them are NGB and MK.

Finally (again, for our purposes), there is the concept of a 'universe'. In a sense, this is a stronger assumption that MK and is denoted by ZFC+U.

Now, the vast majority of mathematics uses ZFC for its set of assumptions. This is considered 'standard set theory'. Any math going beyond it should be explicitly detailed in a work in math.

Now, Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT), is a statement in PA. But, it turns out that Wile's proof uses ZFC+U. The question in the McLarty paper is whether the proof can be done in ZFC or even PA.

The basic point of the paper is that *for results stated in PA*, a proof in ZFC+U can be 'reduced' to a proof in ZFC. And it seems possible that the proof of FLT can be reduced all the way down to PA.

Now, needless to say, the OP does not do anything substantive along these lines. But the basic question of how 'deep' FLT really is remains an interesting question.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is because the wife of Mr. Nobel was taken by a mathematician (as many suggest). Thus: math is not a discipline for Nobel Prize, and even not a science.
.

This is a commonly believed, but false claim. In fact, Nobel was not married, he wanted his prize to go to *practical* results, not the theoretical results of math. In response, of course, math has a wealth of other prizes: Abel Prize, Fields Medal, etc.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do not ignore my question, please.

My questions is first and foremost. Still waiting , , ,

Can you provide any scientific references that falsify or demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe or our physical existence has an absolute beginning or an origin that is not natural?
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
McLarty paper is whether the proof can be done in ZFC or even PA.

The basic point of the paper is that *for results stated in PA*, a proof in ZFC+U can be 'reduced' to a proof in ZFC.

Is it "can" or "done"? Has McLarty reduced the Whiles proof? Or is he only dreaming of reduction from ZFC+U into ZFC?

Don't hold your breath. There is a reason his papers are not accepted for publication.
And a tiny reason for it is your distrust. Too many people have such unreasoned distrust. Why? Because I am cursed by my father, he has said: "the son does not mean anything to me."

Nobel was not married, he wanted his prize to go to *practical* results, not the theoretical results of math
Why then they give the Nobel Prize to politicians, to bankers? They are not scientists. But doing good. Just like mathematicians are doing some good: cryptography, new methods for physics, etc.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why then they give the Nobel Prize to politicians, to bankers? They are not scientists. But doing good. Just like mathematicians are doing some good: cryptography, new methods for physics, etc.

The reference to 2020 Nobel Prize winners here are for Physics and scientists with a long track record of research and peer reviewed journal publications recognized by academic science world wide. No mention politicians and bankers.

Deal with the subject at hand and not dishonest references trying to increase the fog index and avoid the subject.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Is it "can" or "done"? Has McLarty reduced the Whiles proof? Or is he only dreaming of reduction from ZFC+U into ZFC?

McLarty didn't prove a thing in his paper. This was more of a 'survey' paper that puts known results in context.

And a tiny reason for it is your distrust. Too many people have such unreasoned distrust. Why? Because I am cursed by my father, he has said: "the son does not mean anything to me."

Skepticism is a central part of science and of mathematics. That skepticism is crucial for attempts to avoid mistakes.

Why then they give the Nobel Prize to politicians, to bankers? They are not scientists. But doing good. Just like mathematicians are doing some good: cryptography, new methods for physics, etc.

Mathematicians have recieved the Nobel Prize, but in Economics, not in Math. Or, sometimes, in Physics.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
McLarty didn't prove a thing in his paper. This was more of a 'survey' paper that puts known results in context.

Who has reduced the Wiles's proof from ZFC+U into ZFC? Is there a peer-reviewed paper, what has done the reduction? Can you give me a reference to the paper? Please, I can not access McLarty's paper without a fee.

Skepticism is a central part of science and of mathematics. That skepticism is crucial for attempts to avoid mistakes.

There is a thing called "too peer peer-review". The review is less peer for somebody, who has a high reputation of a smart guy, e.g. Steven Hawking.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Who has reduced the Wiles's proof from ZFC+U into ZFC? Is there a peer-reviewed paper, what has done the reduction? Can you give me a reference to the paper? Please, I can not access McLarty's paper without a fee.

The reduction to ZFC is definite by general results. The reduction to PA is very likely given Macintyre's results. There is even a conjecture by Friendman that FLT can be proven in less than PA.

As for McLarty's paper:

http://ftp.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/1603/1603-003.ps

There is a thing called "too peer peer-review". The review is less peer for somebody, who has a high reputation of a smart guy, e.g. Steven Hawking.

I've no doubt that happens. It isn't the issue for your papers.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I've no doubt that happens. It isn't the issue for your papers.

I interpret this dislike as a consequence of my father's curse against me. Since then everybody sees a monster in me, or a fool.

My scientific supervisor wrote to me without a reason: "Are you a fool, or are you playing one?! You are a shame to my University. I will not let you shame my University."
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I interpret this dislike as a consequence of my father's curse against me. Since then everybody sees a monster in me, or a fool.

My scientific supervisor wrote to me without a reason: "Are you a fool, or are you playing one?! You are a shame to my University. I will not let you shame my University."

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with any curse.

I have looked at a number of your papers. Frankly, if I was an editor, I would simply throw them away and not respond to you at all. That you get any reply at all is a courtesy. The most you could expect is something that says the journal is unable to make room for your paper at this time. This is a standard rejection reply.

The only reason people see you in a certain way is because they read what you write. it is simply not up to the standard of homework in an entry level proof class, let alone for a research article.

To get to the place where you can write a research paper and expect it to get published in a valid journal, you will have to learn a LOT, even of the basics.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with any curse.

I have looked at a number of your papers. Frankly, if I was an editor, I would simply throw them away and not respond to you at all. That you get any reply at all is a courtesy. The most you could expect is something that says the journal is unable to make room for your paper at this time. This is a standard rejection reply.

The only reason people see you in a certain way is because they read what you write. it is simply not up to the standard of homework in an entry level proof class, let alone for a research article.

To get to the place where you can write a research paper and expect it to get published in a valid journal, you will have to learn a LOT, even of the basics.
If not the curse, then it is the following: I am simply way ahead of my time, you are looking at the distant future human type. "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." (Nicola Tesla)


 
Last edited:
Top