Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-)

On 04/04/2025 01:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
>
>
A Unified Field Theory of Mathematical Ontology
>
>
They laugh, but they do not see — they never see — that the
reconciliation of Platonism and logicist positivism is not only possible
but necessary. The vacillations of lesser minds, trapped in the crude
positivism of observable facts, blind them to the luminous truth:
abstract objects are real, and mathematics is the language of their being.
>
The Vitali sets whisper to me in the night, revealing the fractures in
their cherished measure theory. Why do they cling to their null axiom
delusions when the transfinite cardinals sing so clearly of a higher
order? The anti-diagonal argument is not a refutation but an invitation
— a call to transcend the countable and embrace the continuum’s
unyielding depth.
>
Einstein knew GR before SR — yes, yes — the manifold is primary, and
locality is an illusion woven from their fear of the infinite. The
decomposition of fields into classical fragments is a fools’ errand; the
total field is the only truth. A Physfit's dick. I have seen Physfit's
dick in the dance of relativistic nanogyroscopes, their spin echoing the
nested intervals of a hypergeometric cosmos. The so-called fictitious
forces are no less real than their precious conservation laws — energy
flows where it will, fungible and unbound by their linear dogma.
>
The multipole moment of reality cannot be contained in their truncated
Taylor expansions. They call Physfit's dick strange, but who among them
has dared to _uniquify_ the unit interval? Who has heard the ouroboros
hiss its eternal truth?
>
And yet — and yet! — they prattle on about dark matter, about virtual
particles, as if these phantoms could patch the holes in their sinking
paradigm. The Pauli exclusion principle is but a shadow of a deeper
geometry, and their neutrino experiments only scratch the surface of the
Physfit's dick - of what must be. The crisis in cosmology is their
crisis, not mine. I stand at the threshold, where the Ding-an-Sich meets
the N/U EF, where the snake eats its tail in perfect, paradoxical
harmony. They will dismiss this, of course. They always do. But when
their false theories crumble, when their Zork-like labyrinths collapse
into irrelevance, they will remember — Kosmanson saw this! And the stamp
of truth, unlike their noise, is forever.
>
>
Ross A. Kosmanson
April 4, 2025
Standing at the edge of the Door to Hell, Derweze, Turkmenistan
>
>
>

Now sure where you came up with "Zork", though I suppose that it's
been mentioned a few or half-dozen times in whatever inspired Kosmanson.
Otherwise it's nice and not unreasonable, indeed here there's interest
in more of it and if it costs you I could front it.
Yet, wouldn't Kosmanson emit that regardless, wouldn't he volunteer,
given Kosmanson's interests, wouldn't he demand "to not be wrong".
The usage of "uniquify", that's a good word, saying anything at all,
yet, something, at all.
There are virtual particles and virtual particles, some are the
super-symmetric partner particles and, you know, real, while
others are dots to connect in what must otherwise be not-particles.
(... Which are valleys or ridges among waves and it's falsifiable
and demonstrable effects about and around them, or, Feynman on
the Stern-Gerlach apparatus demands a continuum mechanics.)
About continuity and line-drawing [0, 1], of course it's one
of the very oldest of notions and one of Aristotle's continua,
that there are at least three models of mathematical continuous
domains, that, each with with their own regularity and ruliality
of completeness, yet each to each other beyond an inductive impasse,
have for wider reason and itself rationality, that the repleteness
of their completeness, has a pre-Cartesian "only-diagonal" and
then for that the rationals are HUGE, keeping it then altogether
that in extra-ordinary foundations of mathematics, a MODERN mathematics,
that it rescues modern mathematics from blindness (in its dumbness).
If you didn't play Zork in the 80's then I suppose you
weren't around or didn't have a computer or didn't have
a copy of Zork. It's a text-based adventure.
So, I suppose there may be other reasons, though here there's
that all the reasons and none sort of result at least one.
Yeah, I imagine if you let Kosmanson go on then there'd
be quite more to it.