No, I can't be because there could be a new realization about the universe that could contradict my model.Are you thinking about theentiretyof universal data (including all data which has not yet been realized or created by humans)?

- Thread starter Quick
- Start date

No, I can't be because there could be a new realization about the universe that could contradict my model.Are you thinking about theentiretyof universal data (including all data which has not yet been realized or created by humans)?

Sorry missed this..Twelve (or 144) possibilities ofwhat?

Could be anything quantitative.

- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005

- Messages
- 10,405

Yup. My concern is that you're leaning toward some mathematical explanation to explain large groups of many combined things (some disparate) at once.… there could be a new realization about the universe that [would] contradict my model.

On the other hand, if you're playing around hoping to delve deeper into infinity, seeking even a truer or more-encompassing definition (a grand theorem, to be sure), be very careful. You know what happened to Georg Cantor!

Of course, I'm not being entirely serious here; I don't know what your big idea is, yet.

All possible outcomes of any situation. This is a very broad concept (idea).… I want to be able to get my ideas into numerical values, not words.

People can certainly assign numbers to attributes of individual, quantifiable things (and, subsequently show eloquent relationships or even derive stupendous results), but putting broad ideas into numbers

It's better to break a big idea into smaller pieces, and, once you've defined and understand the pieces, start focusing on patterns and interrelationships. Build up an explanation toward the big idea in the back of your mind.

I think this approach will also greatly help people to understand you. Spoon-feed us your ideas; start with little mushy bits, not a 16-course Imperial meal! We can't digest the volume of it all at once.

Have you seen the documentary on Andrew Wiles' process solving Fermat's Last Theorem? He communicated with people about his big idea in bits and pieces. Likely, because most of them could understand what he was talking about (i.e., smaller pieces), yet would not be able to accept the entirety of what Wiles envisioned.

Note also! Being a professor, he at one point tried out some of the smaller bits of his big idea on an unsuspecting group of students taking a course that Wiles intentionally offered without providing a clear curriculum. He was simply trying to glean their thoughts, in a vague manner, for insight to help him get around the roadblocks preventing progress. As the term neared its end, every last student had dropped out. This is what can happen, when an audience does not get clear communication of what the discussion is all about. :cool:

You said a lot here.Yup. My concern is that you're leaning toward some mathematical explanation to explain large groups of many combined things (some disparate) at once.

On the other hand, if you're playing around hoping to delve deeper into infinity, seeking even a truer or more-encompassing definition (a grand theorem, to be sure), be very careful. You know what happened to Georg Cantor!

Of course, I'm not being entirely serious here; I don't know what your big idea is, yet.

All possible outcomes of any situation. This is a very broad concept (idea).

People can certainly assign numbers to attributes of individual, quantifiable things (and, subsequently show eloquent relationships or even derive stupendous results), but putting broad ideas into numbersup frontwill certainly become a tough order to fill, quickly.

It's better to break a big idea into smaller pieces, and, once you've defined and understand the pieces, start focusing on patterns and interrelationships. Build up an explanation toward the big idea in the back of your mind.

I think this approach will also greatly help people to understand you. Spoon-feed us your ideas; start with little mushy bits, not a 16-course Imperial meal! We can't digest the volume of it all at once.

Have you seen the documentary on Andrew Wiles' process solving Fermat's Last Theorem? He communicated with people about his big idea in bits and pieces. Likely, because most of them could understand what he was talking about (i.e., smaller pieces), yet would not be able to accept the entirety of what Wiles envisioned.

Note also! Being a professor, he at one point tried out some of the smaller bits of his big idea on an unsuspecting group of students taking a course that Wiles intentionally offered without providing a clear curriculum. He was simply trying to glean their thoughts, in a vague manner, for insight to help him get around the roadblocks preventing progress. As the term neared its end, every last student had dropped out. This is what can happen, when an audience does not get clear communication of what the discussion is all about. :cool:

Your first line is a fairly accurate one. Like I have said more than once at this point, and to echo JeffM, this model could just be nonsense and I really don't know until people can see where I am coming from and understand what it is I am trying to say and give some kind of verdict one way or another. The question is whether it has a practical application in the real world or not. But I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

As far as breaking things into tiny pieces, I'll say this to start off with:

Consider that there are multiple possibilities that could occur, but reality is something with only one occurence for a particular situation. Agree or Disagree?

The evidence of quantum mechanics is that chance is part of the fabric of reality. On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the macroscopic world is not fully deterministic. The mathematician Poincare was a determinist who incorporated probability by saying it is necessitated by our ignorance.Consider that there are multiple possibilities that could occur, but reality is something with only one occurence for a particular situation. Agree or Disagree?

I think you are talking metaphysics rather than mathematics. I suspect that trying to mix the two fields together is a recipe for little or no progress in either. If we live in a deterministic universe, then there are no multiple possibilities so the first clause of your sentence is wrong. If we live in a non-deterministic universe, then chance is part of reality so the second clause of your sentence is wrong.

Thus, I disagree because the sentence as a whole is wrong no matter whether the universe is deterministic or not.

- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005

- Messages
- 10,405

I don't understand the context.… reality is something with only one occurrence for a particular situation. Agree or Disagree?

I looked at each usage of the word 'reality' in this thread. I'm not getting a unified perception.

Then, I started to post about philosophy and metaphysics viewpoints out there (including some quantum theory). For example: there's a viewpoint that an infinite number of universes exist, each one represents a static "instance" of data, together the entirety of universal data is expressed, time is an illusion created by many copies of everyone and everything moving seamlessly from one single, static occurrence to the next -- like flipping through the cards in a Rolodex file -- but each single flip is a crossroads where you can move into any one of an infinite universes (and, when I say you, I'm referring to the one copy of you whose path we are following; the other infinite numbers of you branch off to the remaining universes, one by one) wherein every possible outcome happens somewhere within the multiverse, yet any one universe represents "one occurrence". Hope I didn't botch that explanation.

But while typing, I noticed JeffM's latest reply. His post is better than what I was going to say.

Last edited:

In other words, you are saying that if determinism is true, then there are no other possibilities that could occur, but if we live in a non-determinate universe than chance plays a part in what happens..The evidence of quantum mechanics is that chance is part of the fabric of reality. On the other hand, there is very little evidence that the macroscopic world is not fully deterministic. The mathematician Poincare was a determinist who incorporated probability by saying it is necessitated by our ignorance.

I think you are talking metaphysics rather than mathematics. I suspect that trying to mix the two fields together is a recipe for little or no progress in either. If we live in a deterministic universe, then there are no multiple possibilities so the first clause of your sentence is wrong. If we live in a non-deterministic universe, then chance is part of reality so the second clause of your sentence is wrong.

Thus, I disagree because the sentence as a whole is wrong no matter whether the universe is deterministic or not.

I don't think it is as cut and dry as "yes, determinism exist" or "no, it doesn't." I think that there are somethings that are deterministic and other things that are non-deterministic.

Based on the article I linked, I think this is a piece to the puzzle. Whatever we are not looking at, appears to be deterministic because those things happen without any kind of keen observation, while what we are looking at (what we expect to happen) does seem to happen in the way we think they are going to.

Going back to my wall post in reply to you, I did say "Then, If we know that there are a finite amount of possibilities that could occur, then we can start to use the method of probability to make our best guess as to what could occur." And What I meant by that is that if you were able to to take all the possibilities that there were and add them up, viewing them as specific things that are quantifiable, then you can put a number on it, and then you can get an average, which is the thing that would actually be happening. This would put me in really neither camp exclusively because I do think some things are going to happen no matter if you are expecting them to happen or not. But given that IF what we are looking at (in other words, what we expect to happen) happens, then we could still be able to use this model (or a different one) to predict things in some sense.

So yes, you could say I am trying to tie together mathematics and metaphysics.

I am not sure if what I am saying makes sense to you or not. I could just be spouting gibberish, even though it doesn't seem to be that way to me.

Last edited:

What do you mean? Do you mean the word reality is used in too many different contexts?I don't understand the context.

I looked at each usage of the word 'reality' in this thread. I'm not getting a unified perception.

I wasn't thinking of a multiverse theory when I came up with this idea, but the idea that many things potentially happening are represented by one occurrence is something I was thinking about.Then, I started to post about philosophy and metaphysics viewpoints out there (including some quantum theory). For example: there's a viewpoint that an infinite number of universes exist, each one represents a static "instance" of data, together the entirety of universal data is expressed, time is an illusion created by many copies of everyone and everything moving seamlessly from one single, static occurrence to the next -- like flipping through the cards in a Rolodex file -- wherein every possible outcome happens somewhere within the multiverse, yet any one universe represents "one occurrence".

But while typing, I noticed JeffM's latest reply. His post is better than what I was going to say.

If reality is completely deterministic, then multiple possibilities do not exist. If reality is not completely deterministic, then chance is an unavoidable aspect of reality. If reality is a mixture of deterministic and non-deterministic processes, then chance is part of reality. Chance is excluded only if everything is fully deterministic. It really is either yes or no, not sort of. If possibilities exist in any realm whatsoever, then chance is part of reality.In other words, you are saying that if determinism is true, then there are no other possibilities that could occur, but if we live in a non-determinate universe than chance plays a part in what happens..

I don't think it is as cut and dry as "yes, determinism exist" or "no, it doesn't." I think that there are somethings that are deterministic and other things that are non-deterministic.

Based on the article I linked, I think this is a piece to the puzzle. Whatever we are not looking at, appears to be deterministic because those things happen without any kind of keen observation, while what we are looking at (what we expect to happen) does seem to happen in the way we think they are going to.

Going back to my wall post in reply to you, I did say "Then, If we know that there are a finite amount of possibilities that could occur, then we can start to use the method of probability to make our best guess as to what could occur." And What I meant by that is that if you were able to to take all the possibilities that there were and add them up, viewing them as specific things that are quantifiable, then you can put a number on it, and then you can get an average, which is the thing that would actually be happening. This would put me in really neither camp exclusively because I do think some things are going to happen no matter if you are expecting them to happen or not. But given that IF what we are looking at (in other words, what we expect to happen) happens, then we could still be able to use this model (or a different one) to predict things in some sense.

So yes, you could say I am trying to tie together mathematics and metaphysics.

I am not sure if what I am saying makes sense to you or not. I could just be spouting gibberish, even though it doesn't seem to be that way to me.

Consider rolling a standard die. Before it is rolled, it can come up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. The average value is 3.5, but it is absolutely certain that you will never roll 3.5.

- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005

- Messages
- 10,405

No. I'm simply saying that I can'tDo you mean the word reality is used in too many different contexts?

At this point, I need to go through the entire thread and revisit everything (included your linked references and others' input), to try obtain context. I concede that I haven't yet carefully read

The following quotes are paraphrased.

Reality is the one outcome of many possibilities

Reality is the mean of possibilities occurred

Things always reduce to the lowest common denominator in reality

Reality: the mean of all possibilities

Not sure how -1/12 (sum of all Natural numbers) is related to reality

+1 represents reality, in my diagram

A place within all possibilities is what reality actually is

If so, I can't see it.This linked information explains why reality = +1

Like déjà vu? ;-)We experience a single reality

Is that the average of the dice roll that you would get or the average of the quantity that you could get a result of? What if you were to take the 6 sided die as 6 options.. what would be the average then? What happens when you do the same thing for a 144 sided die?If reality is completely deterministic, then multiple possibilities do not exist. If reality is not completely deterministic, then chance is an unavoidable aspect of reality. If reality is a mixture of deterministic and non-deterministic processes, then chance is part of reality. Chance is excluded only if everything is fully deterministic. It really is either yes or no, not sort of. If possibilities exist in any realm whatsoever, then chance is part of reality.

Consider rolling a standard die. Before it is rolled, it can come up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. The average value is 3.5, but it is absolutely certain that you will never roll 3.5.

I could argue you could chose to roll the dice or not, or do any number of things that could be things you might do, but I think I am fighting a losing battle here...

In any case, my theory prolly doesn't have much merit, but it would be interesting to see if anything else seems to follow the same pattern of 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 144.

These all seem like I am saying roughly the same thing. IDK...No. I'm simply saying that I can'tdeterminea context, my friend. :cool:

At this point, I need to go through the entire thread and revisit everything (included your linked references and others' input), to try obtain context. I concede that I haven't yet carefully readeverythingposted, in this thread.

The following quotes are paraphrased.

If so, I can't see it.

Like déjà vu? ;-)

- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005

- Messages
- 10,405

Good. I'll make an effort, to catch up.These all seem like I am saying roughly the same thing.

I found another way to look at it.

It seems the pattern repeats over and over.

So the pattern would be:

1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 144,

288, 432, 576, 248,832, 61,917,364,224

So the pattern is something like:

x, 2x, 3x, (2x)^2, 3x([2x]^2), (3x[{2x}^2])^2, 2(3x[{(2x)^2}]^2) ect.

But this still means that once you get to 144, that is the completion of the cycle.

It seems the pattern repeats over and over.

So the pattern would be:

1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 144,

288, 432, 576, 248,832, 61,917,364,224

So the pattern is something like:

x, 2x, 3x, (2x)^2, 3x([2x]^2), (3x[{2x}^2])^2, 2(3x[{(2x)^2}]^2) ect.

But this still means that once you get to 144, that is the completion of the cycle.

Last edited:

No. Whatever you are saying seems to be wrong. Are you trying to expandOK, so I think the actual equation I am thinking is this:

(3x[{2x}^2])^2

So what it looks like to me is:

(3X[2x^2])^2

(6x^2)^2

6x^4

Is this right?

\(\displaystyle \{3x(2x^2)\}^2.\)

\(\displaystyle \{3x * (2x)^2\}^2 = (3x * 4x^2)^2 = \{(3 * 4)(x * x^2)\}^2 =\)

\(\displaystyle ((12 * x^3)^2 = 12^2 * (x^3)^2 = 144x^6\)

Trying to do this (I think):No. Whatever you are saying seems to be wrong. Are you trying to expand

\(\displaystyle \{3x(2x^2)\}^2.\)

\(\displaystyle \{3x * (2x)^2\}^2 = (3x * 4x^2)^2 = \{(3 * 4)(x * x^2)\}^2 =\)

\(\displaystyle ((12 * x^3)^2 = 12^2 * (x^3)^2 = 144x^6\)

\(\displaystyle {[3x(2x^2)]^2}/144.\)

IDK how to put my ideas into numbers yet.

Last edited by a moderator:

- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005

- Messages
- 10,405

There's an outer circle, and there's an inner circle. The center of each circle is the same point. Right?… [A] circle represents all possible outcomes (infinity). Within the circle, is another circle. What is within the inner circle represents the mean of all the possibilities (reality). That is the only thing that is within the inner circle.

You later told me that the phrase "all possible outcomes" means "all possible outcomes of any given situation". The phrase "any given situation" ('situation' is a singular noun) refers to one and only one situation. I want to confirm that you are not actually thinking "all possible outcomes of all situations" (plural).

Please provide more detail about your parenthetical notation of infinity above. Is it meant only to say that, given a single situation, there are infinite possible outcomes?

When you say that the outer circle represents "all possible outcomes (infinity)", you are talking about the

Please provide at least one concrete example of this. You already stated that you're talking about all possibilities (reality). I need more detail about what you're thinking when you infer that more possibilities can be added to a set that already contains all possibilities.… you can only add possibilities and cannot subtract them.

Here's one example of why I need the clarifications above. It seems that "all possibilities" has already been used to define the area of the inner circle. Now you're saying that each section of the region between the circles is a different possibility. Are you thinking that each region is a possibleNow suppose that the space in between the two circles is to be split up into different sections. Each section is a different possibility.

I'll wait for your reply, before continuing on to the other issues I've encountered. :cool:

\(\displaystyle \dfrac{\{3x(2x^2)\}^2}{144} = \dfrac{(6x^3)^2}{144} = \dfrac{36x^6}{144} = \dfrac{x^6}{4}.\)Trying to do this (I think):

\(\displaystyle {[3x(2x^2)]^2}/144.\)

IDK how to put my ideas into numbers yet.

In a way I have given up on the weight of my idea in the way I was originally thinking about it. At this point all I am really trying to do is see if I have just discovered an interesting pattern or not.Okay, I've re-read the thread (twice), and revisited your links. I need some clarifications and some concrete examples from your first post, before I can continue my attempts at relating the information in all of the posts.

Correct.There's an outer circle, and there's an inner circle. The center of each circle is the same point. Right?

That is correct. I was thinking that you could take this model and apply it to any situation, but that it is not in it's totality measuring all possible outcomes of every situation at the same time.You later told me that the phrase "all possible outcomes" means "all possible outcomes of any given situation". The phrase "any given situation" ('situation' is a singular noun) refers to one and only one situation. I want to confirm that you are not actually thinking "all possible outcomes of all situations" (plural).

Yes and no. Obviously there are potentially infinity possibilities or outcomes that could occur from a specific situation. But, as I have touched on before on this forum (in the first thread I made here) certain possibilities can more or less be lumped together. And as I said, the two rules that I am using to combine the infinity possibilities or outcomes is based on occam's razor, and symmetry (and probably a rule or two that I don't know how to define).Please provide more detail about your parenthetical notation of infinity above. Is it meant only to say that, given a single situation, there are infinite possible outcomes?

Yes, I am combining possible outcomes and all possibilities as the same thing.When you say that the outer circle represents "all possible outcomes (infinity)", you are talking about theregion in betweenthe inner circle and the outer circle. Right? The inner circle is a part of the outer circle, but it seems like you're saying that there's a difference between "all possible outcomes of any given situation" and the "mean of all possibilities". Could it be that you are conflating the words 'outcomes' and 'possibilities'?

OK, so an example that I am thinking of is kinda the way time moves. If you look at a clock, the numbers never go backwards, only forwards. It's pretty much the same thing as that.Please provide at least one concrete example of this. You already stated that you're talking about all possibilities (reality). I need more detail about what you're thinking when you infer that more possibilities can be added to a set that already contains all possibilities.

No, all possibilities is not defined as the inner circle, but the outer circle. The inner circle is the result of (or the average) of all the possibilities that could occur. Yes, each section is a different outcome or possibility that could occur of a given situation.Here's one example of why I need the clarifications above. It seems that "all possibilities" has already been used to define the area of the inner circle. Now you're saying that each section of the region between the circles is a different possibility. Are you thinking that each region is a possibleoutcomeof the single given situation?

Hopefully I haven't made things more difficult to understand.I'll wait for your reply, before continuing on to the other issues I've encountered. :cool: