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

On 4/4/25 6:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

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.
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
A note about Kosmanson's emphasis on what's often truncated in an
infinite series. A year or so back I was forming baby problems in a blog
for a Linux newsgroup frequenters to solve, and in one of them one would
begin with a correct equation, would make correct changes in it, but
would end up in an obviously wrong equation :) Nobody solved it of
course (audience were mostly morons). But I now wonder if that problem
had something about Kosmanson's concerns about handling infinities.
>
Here I quote the part of the blog that contained that problem:
>
(beginning of the quote)
>
>
   "Then, swoooooooshhshsh!.... and Jesus and all that intense light
went
back up and out of there. Physfit looked up and there wasn't even an
opening in the ceiling anymore. But now for some reason he was
horizontally on the floor, in his bed. Right in the living room!
>
He thought a bit about what was happening, when he found himself quite
hungry. Last time he had eaten anything was the night before he had
waken up on the summit of the magic mountain in an urban Dallas area.
>
He thought to himself, "I'm going to assume that more than 48 hours has
passed since. So got up and walked to the kitchen and took a look inside
refrigerator. There was nothing there but the cat food he had cooked on
the day he first saw the magic mountain. He got on the computer to order
something zesty from HelloFresh. After choosing the closest to a healthy
nice pre-agricultural food kit, he clicked, "Go to checkout" button,
after which the computer waited for a few seconds but instead of getting
to the check out screen, a screen came up to make sure Physfit was not a
robot. It had a simple question that he had to give it the correct
answer, otherwise food nommo.
>
The question went like this:
>
     "In math, is there a difference between the two numbers 0.999999...
and 1 ?"
>
The digits of "9" continued forever to the right of the radix point. So
of course, Physfit clicked on the "yes" button. If there was not a
difference, then one wouldn't even bother to write 1 in that funky form,
using an infinite series of digit 9.
>
But the screen disappeared, and a message said, "You're a robot. Bye!"
>
Physfit said, "Fuck!" (first of the fix number of curses Jesus had
allowed him for that day). So he took a pen and paper and started
jotting down:
>
     x = 0.99999....
>
Therefore:
>
     10x = 9.99999....
>
Now he subtracted the former from the latter:
>
     10x - x = 9.99999... - 0.99999...
>
Which simplifies to:

>
     9x = 9
>
And therefore:
>
     x = 1
>
"What the fuck??", said Physfit (his 2nd curse of the day).
>
Why x which was 0.99999... and not 1, turned out to be 1? ... "
>
>
(end of quote)
>
>
So, is this problem pointing to what Kosmanson has been so keen about?
:)