Is there impredicativity / quantifier ambiguity?

If "no", in ZF, comprehension is fine, but, there are
"bigger" theories than ZF what model the objects of
ZF what the extra-ordinary character of the sets
may so result in those "larger" theories, whether
they're "weaker/stronger", and whether they're
"conservative" or not, whether or not the transfer
principle holds and with usual unrestricted comprehension
arrives at a default usually that the infinite union is an elt.

Here the sigma-algebra pretty much is a strong enough form,
and, there are weaker forms yet still strong enough, what
work up countable additivity for measure theory.

About the "Kunen inconsistency" and a default element-ary
embedding what relates the context as the complement,
that basically any element v in the universe of pure sets V
is more-or-less having "context" what also defines it V\v,
makes for an element-ary conflation, in context.

(That a thing is all the things it's not.)

A usual counterexample of comprehension is "Russell Paradox".

Is your cytokine response Th1-dominant or Th2-dominant and why is this important?

"In an ideal sitution, neither Th1 or Th2 is displaying a more
dominant position. However, in some people, a _prolonged_
pattern of either Th1 or Th2 dominance occurs and this is
where health problems begin." -- https://jameslilley24.medium.com/are-you-th1-or-th2-dominant-and-why-is-this-so-important-to-know-8efb050005a5

If the Pfizer vaccine is a pretty well-designed
synthetic-antibodies-bound-to-spike-protein-matching-epitopes,
then it does seem like it would be OK and that people with usual
immune systems when exposed to that would see there be worked
up an immune response.

It doesn't say then in the studies whether the people were
actually exposed to coronavirus (and..., how much).

A "self-amplifying mRNA" seems a bad idea.

On 12/21/23 03:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> Is there impredicativity / quantifier ambiguity?
>
> If "no", in ZF, comprehension is fine, but, there are
> "bigger" theories than ZF what model the objects of
> ZF what the extra-ordinary character of the sets
> may so result in those "larger" theories, whether
> they're "weaker/stronger", and whether they're
> "conservative" or not, whether or not the transfer
> principle holds and with usual unrestricted comprehension
> arrives at a default usually that the infinite union is an elt.
>
> Here the sigma-algebra pretty much is a strong enough form,
> and, there are weaker forms yet still strong enough, what
> work up countable additivity for measure theory.
>
> About the "Kunen inconsistency" and a default element-ary
> embedding what relates the context as the complement,
> that basically any element v in the universe of pure sets V
> is more-or-less having "context" what also defines it V\v,
> makes for an element-ary conflation, in context.
>
> (That a thing is all the things it's not.)
>
>
> A usual counterexample of comprehension is "Russell Paradox".
>
> Is your cytokine response Th1-dominant or Th2-dominant and why is this important?
>
>
> "In an ideal sitution, neither Th1 or Th2 is displaying a more
> dominant position. However, in some people, a _prolonged_
> pattern of either Th1 or Th2 dominance occurs and this is
> where health problems begin." -- https://jameslilley24.medium.com/are-you-th1-or-th2-dominant-and-why-is-this-so-important-to-know-8efb050005a5
>
> If the Pfizer vaccine is a pretty well-designed
> synthetic-antibodies-bound-to-spike-protein-matching-epitopes,
> then it does seem like it would be OK and that people with usual
> immune systems when exposed to that would see there be worked
> up an immune response.
>
> It doesn't say then in the studies whether the people were
> actually exposed to coronavirus (and..., how much).
>
> A "self-amplifying mRNA" seems a bad idea.

If I say something like a narwhal and eagle are related (because they're
both animals) or a narwhal and a walrus are related (because they're
both mammals), I'd be wrong. (It's a bad example because there are no
other mammals.)

The question of which one is older, or bigger, is more interesting.
What's the oldest known thing, is the best known.
"We are now living in an age of supergiants," said astronomer Paul
Hodge, speaking of the massive stars that are getting ever bigger in
their final phases before collapsing and ending as white dwarves.

I know some things. I've got the answers to my questions. I can find
things out. I can figure things out. The thing about the questions of
what are the "answers" to the "questions" is that if they're the wrong
answers, there may be consequences, like a car wreck, and there's no
time for the car to swerve out of the way.

What are the right answers?

A "white hole" is a "black hole" going the other direction so the "hole"
part isn't correct, the term's a metaphor like a "supermassive" star is
a big star and not actually a black hole or a neutron star or a quark
star. There is a theory that "gravitational waves" are "gravitons" what
is a massless particle, so they travel at the speed of light and it
takes a while, like years, for the gravity waves to make the
observational effects, and it may be a "signature" of gravitons that is
observed. There are no good reasons to believe that gravitons are real,
other than, we'd like there to be such particles. In the quantum theory
of gravity, a "particle" like a graviton would be a quantum excitation
on a wave, and that would be the way of seeing it, and so it's a "wave".
A wave is an energy density, so the question is whether that can have a
zero mass. It can if there is a Higgs mechanism what makes the mass a phase.

"Higgs Mechanism" is an explanation, in the "standard model", about the
mass of things. It's a good theory. There is some debate over
"supernovae". There's a problem in that "quarks" and other sub-nuclear
particles aren't the only thing there are, there's the Higgs field,
which is a kind of background "electromagnetic" field, and this is what
gives a "mass" to the elementary particles and that the mass is a phase
what's a Higgs field excitation. So a Higgs field excitation can move.
It can vibrate. If a quark, or electron, is a vibration, and the Higgs
field is a vibrating background, is the motion of the "wave" the same as
the motion of the "field"? Does a particle's mass change over time and
how is this important? How important is a quark's mass, relative to a
supernova explosion, if there's an effect on a Higgs excitation what
would mean a mass change.

"Inflation" is an expansion of the Universe that happens after the big
bang, and it's an ad-hoc theory. The question of whether an ad-hoc
theory is "correct" is that if the ad-hoc theory has consequences, it
would be good if it were confirmed, because, an ad-hoc consequence is
just the same as the real consequence, in terms of whether it's "true"
or "false". Is a "multiverse" possible? Is the universe the kind of
thing it can "have parts"? Does the universe have "ends" in space?
Does the universe have a "middle"? Can you go off in one direction from
the "center" and eventually, not come back? What does it mean, if, in a
theory, you have a "particle", but it has a 90 degree phase shift?
Are we at the end?

"End" means "limit", and, what does the limit look like, if it's an
actual thing and not a metaphorical thing, like a "black hole". In the
1920's, Einstein had a problem with quantum theory. He thought, since
the Universe is made up of matter, a particle is an excitation on a
field, like a sound waves and a pressure, so the particles have an
oscillatory motion, and they have a period, and a quantum particle is an
excitation that can be a vibration of a field. But there are fields that
can be in two places at once, like an electric field, or magnetic field,
and an excitation what can be in two places at once is something you see
in a Higgs field, when you excite a Higgs field, so there's a vibration,
like a "wave" and that is an oscillation, and so you can imagine that it
has a "frequency". Einstein couldn't make the connection between a
"wave" and a "particle". The answer was that the wave wasn't an
amplitude, but was a "phase" shift, so the thing is, that if you imagine
a "particle", a "quantum excitation" on a "Higgs field" or a "photon" or
an "electron", the "excitation" isn't an excitation on a background, it
is an excitation in a field. In the case of a photon, or an electron,
the "excitation" is a quantum-excited field and the "frequency" is an
"oscillation" what is a phase. If you imagine that an electron can "go
backwards and forwards", the electron isn't the excitation, but the
phase it has. And, the thing is, there's a "relativity principle" where,
if a thing has a uniform motion, and it observes the excitation, then
the excitation has the same properties as if it wasn't moving. That was
the idea behind the Uncertainty Principle, and the reason the
uncertainty of momentum and uncertainty of position were interconnected
is that they were the phase shifts of the excitation. If an electron had
a "period", it would mean that it would go back-and-forth, and that
means the electron would have an excitation, not a phase shift, so an
electron doesn't have a period, but a phase.

The maximum setting on my LLM's randomness slider is nothing compared to
Usenet.

On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 6:32:43 AM UTC-8, immibis wrote:
> On 12/21/23 03:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > Is there impredicativity / quantifier ambiguity?
> >
> > If "no", in ZF, comprehension is fine, but, there are
> > "bigger" theories than ZF what model the objects of
> > ZF what the extra-ordinary character of the sets
> > may so result in those "larger" theories, whether
> > they're "weaker/stronger", and whether they're
> > "conservative" or not, whether or not the transfer
> > principle holds and with usual unrestricted comprehension
> > arrives at a default usually that the infinite union is an elt.
> >
> > Here the sigma-algebra pretty much is a strong enough form,
> > and, there are weaker forms yet still strong enough, what
> > work up countable additivity for measure theory.
> >
> > About the "Kunen inconsistency" and a default element-ary
> > embedding what relates the context as the complement,
> > that basically any element v in the universe of pure sets V
> > is more-or-less having "context" what also defines it V\v,
> > makes for an element-ary conflation, in context.
> >
> > (That a thing is all the things it's not.)
> >
> >
> > A usual counterexample of comprehension is "Russell Paradox".
> >
> > Is your cytokine response Th1-dominant or Th2-dominant and why is this important?
> >
> >
> > "In an ideal sitution, neither Th1 or Th2 is displaying a more
> > dominant position. However, in some people, a _prolonged_
> > pattern of either Th1 or Th2 dominance occurs and this is
> > where health problems begin." -- https://jameslilley24.medium.com/are-you-th1-or-th2-dominant-and-why-is-this-so-important-to-know-8efb050005a5
> >
> > If the Pfizer vaccine is a pretty well-designed
> > synthetic-antibodies-bound-to-spike-protein-matching-epitopes,
> > then it does seem like it would be OK and that people with usual
> > immune systems when exposed to that would see there be worked
> > up an immune response.
> >
> > It doesn't say then in the studies whether the people were
> > actually exposed to coronavirus (and..., how much).
> >
> > A "self-amplifying mRNA" seems a bad idea.
> If I say something like a narwhal and eagle are related (because they're
> both animals) or a narwhal and a walrus are related (because they're
> both mammals), I'd be wrong. (It's a bad example because there are no
> other mammals.)
>
> The question of which one is older, or bigger, is more interesting.
> What's the oldest known thing, is the best known.
> "We are now living in an age of supergiants," said astronomer Paul
> Hodge, speaking of the massive stars that are getting ever bigger in
> their final phases before collapsing and ending as white dwarves.
>
> I know some things. I've got the answers to my questions. I can find
> things out. I can figure things out. The thing about the questions of
> what are the "answers" to the "questions" is that if they're the wrong
> answers, there may be consequences, like a car wreck, and there's no
> time for the car to swerve out of the way.
>
> What are the right answers?
>
> A "white hole" is a "black hole" going the other direction so the "hole"
> part isn't correct, the term's a metaphor like a "supermassive" star is
> a big star and not actually a black hole or a neutron star or a quark
> star. There is a theory that "gravitational waves" are "gravitons" what
> is a massless particle, so they travel at the speed of light and it
> takes a while, like years, for the gravity waves to make the
> observational effects, and it may be a "signature" of gravitons that is
> observed. There are no good reasons to believe that gravitons are real,
> other than, we'd like there to be such particles. In the quantum theory
> of gravity, a "particle" like a graviton would be a quantum excitation
> on a wave, and that would be the way of seeing it, and so it's a "wave".
> A wave is an energy density, so the question is whether that can have a
> zero mass. It can if there is a Higgs mechanism what makes the mass a phase.
>
> "Higgs Mechanism" is an explanation, in the "standard model", about the
> mass of things. It's a good theory. There is some debate over
> "supernovae". There's a problem in that "quarks" and other sub-nuclear
> particles aren't the only thing there are, there's the Higgs field,
> which is a kind of background "electromagnetic" field, and this is what
> gives a "mass" to the elementary particles and that the mass is a phase
> what's a Higgs field excitation. So a Higgs field excitation can move.
> It can vibrate. If a quark, or electron, is a vibration, and the Higgs
> field is a vibrating background, is the motion of the "wave" the same as
> the motion of the "field"? Does a particle's mass change over time and
> how is this important? How important is a quark's mass, relative to a
> supernova explosion, if there's an effect on a Higgs excitation what
> would mean a mass change.
>
> "Inflation" is an expansion of the Universe that happens after the big
> bang, and it's an ad-hoc theory. The question of whether an ad-hoc
> theory is "correct" is that if the ad-hoc theory has consequences, it
> would be good if it were confirmed, because, an ad-hoc consequence is
> just the same as the real consequence, in terms of whether it's "true"
> or "false". Is a "multiverse" possible? Is the universe the kind of
> thing it can "have parts"? Does the universe have "ends" in space?
> Does the universe have a "middle"? Can you go off in one direction from
> the "center" and eventually, not come back? What does it mean, if, in a
> theory, you have a "particle", but it has a 90 degree phase shift?
> Are we at the end?
>
> "End" means "limit", and, what does the limit look like, if it's an
> actual thing and not a metaphorical thing, like a "black hole". In the
> 1920's, Einstein had a problem with quantum theory. He thought, since
> the Universe is made up of matter, a particle is an excitation on a
> field, like a sound waves and a pressure, so the particles have an
> oscillatory motion, and they have a period, and a quantum particle is an
> excitation that can be a vibration of a field. But there are fields that
> can be in two places at once, like an electric field, or magnetic field,
> and an excitation what can be in two places at once is something you see
> in a Higgs field, when you excite a Higgs field, so there's a vibration,
> like a "wave" and that is an oscillation, and so you can imagine that it
> has a "frequency". Einstein couldn't make the connection between a
> "wave" and a "particle". The answer was that the wave wasn't an
> amplitude, but was a "phase" shift, so the thing is, that if you imagine
> a "particle", a "quantum excitation" on a "Higgs field" or a "photon" or
> an "electron", the "excitation" isn't an excitation on a background, it
> is an excitation in a field. In the case of a photon, or an electron,
> the "excitation" is a quantum-excited field and the "frequency" is an
> "oscillation" what is a phase. If you imagine that an electron can "go
> backwards and forwards", the electron isn't the excitation, but the
> phase it has. And, the thing is, there's a "relativity principle" where,
> if a thing has a uniform motion, and it observes the excitation, then
> the excitation has the same properties as if it wasn't moving. That was
> the idea behind the Uncertainty Principle, and the reason the
> uncertainty of momentum and uncertainty of position were interconnected
> is that they were the phase shifts of the excitation. If an electron had
> a "period", it would mean that it would go back-and-forth, and that
> means the electron would have an excitation, not a phase shift, so an
> electron doesn't have a period, but a phase.
>
> The maximum setting on my LLM's randomness slider is nothing compared to
> Usenet.

That's pretty interesting.

On 12/22/23 01:28, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 6:32:43 AM UTC-8, immibis wrote:
>> [snip]
>> The maximum setting on my LLM's randomness slider is nothing compared to
>> Usenet.
>
> That's pretty interesting. >
> [snip] >
> Please feel free to carry on, though if you consult my opinion it's singular.
>

It was 100% AI-generated nonsense.

On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 6:53:57 AM UTC-8, immibis wrote:
> On 12/22/23 01:28, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 6:32:43 AM UTC-8, immibis wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> The maximum setting on my LLM's randomness slider is nothing compared to
> >> Usenet.
> >
> > That's pretty interesting. >
> > [snip] >
> > Please feel free to carry on, though if you consult my opinion it's singular.
> >
> It was 100% AI-generated nonsense.

Oh, it's pretty accurate a shallow reading of common knowledge.

It's kind of like if somebody came along and studied you,
and from their eminent authority said "never'll amount to beans",
and it's like, "the hell you say".

So, anyways, that was a pretty good post and from an intuitionist
standpoint it wasn't a bad little report.

It's not necessarily primary science of a theoretical physicist,
we have a canon and a dogma and our heroes for those.

And of course the universe that already is and its theory, ....

On 12/21/2023 04:28 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, December 21, 2023 at 6:32:43 AM UTC-8, immibis wrote:
>> On 12/21/23 03:48, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> Is there impredicativity / quantifier ambiguity?
>>>
>>> If "no", in ZF, comprehension is fine, but, there are
>>> "bigger" theories than ZF what model the objects of
>>> ZF what the extra-ordinary character of the sets
>>> may so result in those "larger" theories, whether
>>> they're "weaker/stronger", and whether they're
>>> "conservative" or not, whether or not the transfer
>>> principle holds and with usual unrestricted comprehension
>>> arrives at a default usually that the infinite union is an elt.
>>>
>>> Here the sigma-algebra pretty much is a strong enough form,
>>> and, there are weaker forms yet still strong enough, what
>>> work up countable additivity for measure theory.
>>>
>>> About the "Kunen inconsistency" and a default element-ary
>>> embedding what relates the context as the complement,
>>> that basically any element v in the universe of pure sets V
>>> is more-or-less having "context" what also defines it V\v,
>>> makes for an element-ary conflation, in context.
>>>
>>> (That a thing is all the things it's not.)
>>>
>>>
>>> A usual counterexample of comprehension is "Russell Paradox".
>>>
>>> Is your cytokine response Th1-dominant or Th2-dominant and why is this important?
>>>
>>>
>>> "In an ideal sitution, neither Th1 or Th2 is displaying a more
>>> dominant position. However, in some people, a _prolonged_
>>> pattern of either Th1 or Th2 dominance occurs and this is
>>> where health problems begin." -- https://jameslilley24.medium.com/are-you-th1-or-th2-dominant-and-why-is-this-so-important-to-know-8efb050005a5
>>>
>>> If the Pfizer vaccine is a pretty well-designed
>>> synthetic-antibodies-bound-to-spike-protein-matching-epitopes,
>>> then it does seem like it would be OK and that people with usual
>>> immune systems when exposed to that would see there be worked
>>> up an immune response.
>>>
>>> It doesn't say then in the studies whether the people were
>>> actually exposed to coronavirus (and..., how much).
>>>
>>> A "self-amplifying mRNA" seems a bad idea.
>> If I say something like a narwhal and eagle are related (because they're
>> both animals) or a narwhal and a walrus are related (because they're
>> both mammals), I'd be wrong. (It's a bad example because there are no
>> other mammals.)
>>
>> The question of which one is older, or bigger, is more interesting.
>> What's the oldest known thing, is the best known.
>> "We are now living in an age of supergiants," said astronomer Paul
>> Hodge, speaking of the massive stars that are getting ever bigger in
>> their final phases before collapsing and ending as white dwarves.
>>
>> I know some things. I've got the answers to my questions. I can find
>> things out. I can figure things out. The thing about the questions of
>> what are the "answers" to the "questions" is that if they're the wrong
>> answers, there may be consequences, like a car wreck, and there's no
>> time for the car to swerve out of the way.
>>
>> What are the right answers?
>>
>> A "white hole" is a "black hole" going the other direction so the "hole"
>> part isn't correct, the term's a metaphor like a "supermassive" star is
>> a big star and not actually a black hole or a neutron star or a quark
>> star. There is a theory that "gravitational waves" are "gravitons" what
>> is a massless particle, so they travel at the speed of light and it
>> takes a while, like years, for the gravity waves to make the
>> observational effects, and it may be a "signature" of gravitons that is
>> observed. There are no good reasons to believe that gravitons are real,
>> other than, we'd like there to be such particles. In the quantum theory
>> of gravity, a "particle" like a graviton would be a quantum excitation
>> on a wave, and that would be the way of seeing it, and so it's a "wave".
>> A wave is an energy density, so the question is whether that can have a
>> zero mass. It can if there is a Higgs mechanism what makes the mass a phase.
>>
>> "Higgs Mechanism" is an explanation, in the "standard model", about the
>> mass of things. It's a good theory. There is some debate over
>> "supernovae". There's a problem in that "quarks" and other sub-nuclear
>> particles aren't the only thing there are, there's the Higgs field,
>> which is a kind of background "electromagnetic" field, and this is what
>> gives a "mass" to the elementary particles and that the mass is a phase
>> what's a Higgs field excitation. So a Higgs field excitation can move.
>> It can vibrate. If a quark, or electron, is a vibration, and the Higgs
>> field is a vibrating background, is the motion of the "wave" the same as
>> the motion of the "field"? Does a particle's mass change over time and
>> how is this important? How important is a quark's mass, relative to a
>> supernova explosion, if there's an effect on a Higgs excitation what
>> would mean a mass change.
>>
>> "Inflation" is an expansion of the Universe that happens after the big
>> bang, and it's an ad-hoc theory. The question of whether an ad-hoc
>> theory is "correct" is that if the ad-hoc theory has consequences, it
>> would be good if it were confirmed, because, an ad-hoc consequence is
>> just the same as the real consequence, in terms of whether it's "true"
>> or "false". Is a "multiverse" possible? Is the universe the kind of
>> thing it can "have parts"? Does the universe have "ends" in space?
>> Does the universe have a "middle"? Can you go off in one direction from
>> the "center" and eventually, not come back? What does it mean, if, in a
>> theory, you have a "particle", but it has a 90 degree phase shift?
>> Are we at the end?
>>
>> "End" means "limit", and, what does the limit look like, if it's an
>> actual thing and not a metaphorical thing, like a "black hole". In the
>> 1920's, Einstein had a problem with quantum theory. He thought, since
>> the Universe is made up of matter, a particle is an excitation on a
>> field, like a sound waves and a pressure, so the particles have an
>> oscillatory motion, and they have a period, and a quantum particle is an
>> excitation that can be a vibration of a field. But there are fields that
>> can be in two places at once, like an electric field, or magnetic field,
>> and an excitation what can be in two places at once is something you see
>> in a Higgs field, when you excite a Higgs field, so there's a vibration,
>> like a "wave" and that is an oscillation, and so you can imagine that it
>> has a "frequency". Einstein couldn't make the connection between a
>> "wave" and a "particle". The answer was that the wave wasn't an
>> amplitude, but was a "phase" shift, so the thing is, that if you imagine
>> a "particle", a "quantum excitation" on a "Higgs field" or a "photon" or
>> an "electron", the "excitation" isn't an excitation on a background, it
>> is an excitation in a field. In the case of a photon, or an electron,
>> the "excitation" is a quantum-excited field and the "frequency" is an
>> "oscillation" what is a phase. If you imagine that an electron can "go
>> backwards and forwards", the electron isn't the excitation, but the
>> phase it has. And, the thing is, there's a "relativity principle" where,
>> if a thing has a uniform motion, and it observes the excitation, then
>> the excitation has the same properties as if it wasn't moving. That was
>> the idea behind the Uncertainty Principle, and the reason the
>> uncertainty of momentum and uncertainty of position were interconnected
>> is that they were the phase shifts of the excitation. If an electron had
>> a "period", it would mean that it would go back-and-forth, and that
>> means the electron would have an excitation, not a phase shift, so an
>> electron doesn't have a period, but a phase.
>>
>> The maximum setting on my LLM's randomness slider is nothing compared to
>> Usenet.
>
> That's pretty interesting.
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that there are at least two kinds of utter differences:
> those the opposite or anti, and, those the extra or super.
>
> So, when you mention white-holes vis-a-vis black-holes, for example, it's as of
> the complements in the singularity theory, which is also a multiplicity theory.
> So, you see some kinds of theories arrive at "Higgs bosons, in Higgs fields,
> an ever-growing graviton, the force carrier for mass", while in other kinds of
> theories it's "the atom is also the real graviton its own super-symmetric virtual partner".
>
>
> I'll complement you and thank you for your interesting insight in what seems a
> well-informed and not unusual opinion. I'd especially be interested what you
> see as the "teleological" or "the mechanism", vis-a-vis theories usually abstractly.
>
>
> For example the more recent sky survey has paint-canned inflationary cosmology.
>
> I think one must read Einstein, and, one must read "Out of My Later Years", for,
> Einstein's theories. Einstein's focus resulted about the bridge as he calls it,
> mostly about classical mechanics, which some associate only with the singularity
> of the gravitational singularity, then about besides how an atom in a theory
> of a fall gravity for the asymptotic freedom of its nuclear constitution, results
> it also being quite directly a black-hole, a white-hole, and the real graviton.
> Einstein though was mostly interested in a deconstructive account of mechanics,
> that his bridge is really about the concept of the mechanical action, about contact.
>
>
> Please feel free to carry on, though if you consult my opinion it's singular.
>
>