Like, why does a quantum exist as that particular unit? “Magic”, actuality, falling into place, some inscrutable capacity dictated by some measure; like a prime is actually.
Magic is always the unexpected reality of something, the unaccountable reality. Einstein, to put it cynically, takes the magic for granted and capitalized on it with a grand economy. Bless his soul. Of course he recognized the magic-ness of it all - but not the actual procedure of it. The dice-playing. I cant believe he thought that god doesnt play dice. God is a game, or decently understood as such.
I knew you were gonna do that. But that is the actual essence. The reference frame is power; QE fuckin D.
And I won’t be taking shortcuts (notational style) if I do this whole juice thing for real. And maybe I will here, or in your thread, at that.
On the other hand maybe I will - and Im really not taking shortcuts, just speeding through the matter, like pretending Montreal is actually paved with real roads, yet still not driving a Ferrari.
By the way, I am not saying what we are doing in the other thread will help you. It is for my own amusement, my own fun. It may or may not be helpful to your method.
Posted a bunch of well articulated thoughts in your own thread. I will repost them here, as they are an advance on what I had articulated so far on system architecture.
I have no idea why you aren’t satisfied with the value of this - and I would like to say that doesnt matter, but it kind of does, as that figures into the drive I have to cover more ground. I guess Im just going to be thankful for the prod, and the resistance.
Thats another term for you. An observer is by necessity a resistance, not purely a conductor.
Any conductor, as it happens, must be some kind of resistance as well.
Your innovation isn’t “force.” That’s a half-assed copy-paste from Nietzsche.
Your innovation is the particularity in the system.
Of course, you can go the route of saying the system requires force, but there is no force at smaller levels, so it was all a mistake and the real truth is some prophetic revelation you keep harping on. But that’s inventing a problem that wasn’t there to apply a solution that doesn’t exist.
The real truth, the real insight, is about particularity. This is good. To then give a universal name and category to particularity is an insult to your own self, unless you are just joking, in which case who am I to judge.
This is what I meant by Capable needing too much to be relevant.
Why include Nietzsche at all? Why not just work the system as is? It has great promise. I myself see and agree with you that none of it requires Nietzsche and that that is a very unique accomplishment after Nietzsche.
Because you put so much effort and time into artificially inserting Nietzsche somehow, it is now a useless mess. But the insight is very clear and real. If you study physics for 10 years, as just one example, granted, the only example I can think of, it can be of value.
Completely misunderstood me dude. Of course I never said that there is no force at smaller levels, I said that force is not by itself sufficient to the “nature” (potential of behavior) of the quantum. Which is what makes a thing science, that it allows us to know the potential behavior. You do understand the difference between “sufficient to” and necessary for", I presume?
Yes, I know what my advance it. That is precisely the point. Force isn’t adequate to definition. It doesnt give the particularity.
Still you’re the only one here who can even so much as feather-touch me. I have to deal with this I suppose.
It is based on Nietzsche, without Nietzsche its full scope cant be understood. “Force” is a stray-dog form of “will to power”.
WtP gives is the inclusion of the context, but folded up in rhetoric so that it took me to recognize it for the scientific formula that it is. Im by now fairly positive that you won’t have the patience to think this through, to work with this. But thats on you.
It may be that it confuses you to see it in light of N. I have to think about whether I will make that my problem, but Ill take it into consideration - no doubt you’re not the only one who likes to see N removed from the project of a philosophical science - I can see I may have been too demonstrative of my deference to the man but still - yes, I advanced on him. I didn’t eradicate him. I dont ‘try to be relevant’ by deferring to the one philosopher that ever forced me to become greater. I simply give what is due.
But, given the nature of the world, its lack of interest in and capacity for Nietzsche, and the fact that N owes to people he doesnt mention too, I still may take your advice and leave him out. I delight too much in the full complexity of the thing. I aid and abet nature too much in her efforts to hide, maybe. That is my allegiance to her, could be. What man, what men are worthy of this insight? Only of course the Uebermensch. And he’s not here on the goddamn forum.
It’s the same thing. Force fails as a qualifier for a quantum. Of course, the only qualifier for a quantum is in the name, namely, that it ban be counted.
Right, same shit. Made up problem. Professional physicists have already not been bothering with it for decades either.
I used to have this problem. I now would never demean myself so as to frame my opponent as a given person.
We advise it srongly.
I don’t know about these other fellas, but I am telling you, if you fail to actually account for Nietzsche, and you do, then you butcher your importation from Nietzsche and sully your own innovation. You are trying to see Nietzsche in terms of form, and we won’t go into all that phenomenology shit right now, it’s part of that disgusting postmodernist shit that you still somehow manage to make genius out of, but you should be already separating inspiration from product.
The sentiment is understood and appreciated, but you went too far. Gratitude has that tendency. It speaks well of you. But it is a mistake.
If only that. Let everything be lost but a sense of humour.
