The Pincho Paxton Universe generator

[Pincho Paxton]

Posted here before ages ago. I have a Theory Of Everything. Typically, nobody takes it seriously. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an artist, and computer game designer who can program computer simulations, and Neural Networks... I don't use much in the way of maths. I believe that the Universe does not know maths, so I don't need to know maths to re-create it. I have a few simple lines of code that do exactly what the Universe does. The lines of code are all taken from my theory, they control a single particle.. a Pinchon. I start the Universe from a single particle that has split.. Day 1 of the Universe. My simulation will then create everything else, most importantly, without pre-programmed physics. No gravity, no parts, no cheats. And you will be able to watch the Universe develop on YouTube. Here is my first test, my first day of programming, a none working version, but just something to start with...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggRxyHjimxM&feature=player_embedded

 

[Dywyddyr]

Posted here before ages ago. I have a Theory Of Everything.

No, what you have is far from being a theory.

Typically, nobody takes it seriously.

And the reason for that is:

I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician.

Got it?

I believe that the Universe does not know maths, so I don't need to know maths to re-create it.

And that's why you're usually wrong.

I have a few simple lines of code that do exactly what the Universe does.

Yet to be shown.

The lines of code are all taken from my theory, they control a single particle.. a Pinchon. I start the Universe from a single particle that has split.. Day 1 of the Universe. My simulation will then create everything else, most importantly, without pre-programmed physics. No gravity, no parts, no cheats. And you will be able to watch the Universe develop on YouTube. Here is my first test, my first day of programming, a none working version, but just something to start with...

Except that that doesn't appear to start with a single anything.

And I love how you declare "My simulation will then create everything else, most importantly, without pre-programmed physics" and then present a "none working version" as some sort of validation.

Here, for your elucidation, is my computer model (non-working) that proves conclusively that I'm god, Angelina Jolie finds me irresistible and Bill Gates is going to give me all of his money:

.


It needs a little tweaking but I'm sure you can see I'm right just from what there is now.



Cesspool please.

 

[tashja]

I like the vid, Pincho.

May I suggest you speed up the process a little bit, and add some background music to it. I recommend some upbeat tune like--->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipE9QFiWhzQ

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I like the vid, Pincho.

May I suggest you speed up the process a little bit, and add some background music to it. I recommend some upbeat tune like--->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipE9QFiWhzQ

I'll do the next one like that.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

No, what you have is far from being a theory.


And the reason for that is:

Got it?


And that's why you're usually wrong.


Yet to be shown.


Except that that doesn't appear to start with a single anything.

And I love how you declare "My simulation will then create everything else, most importantly, without pre-programmed physics" and then present a "none working version" as some sort of validation.

Here, for your elucidation, is my computer model (no-working) that proves conclusively that I'm god, Angelina Jolie finds me irresistible and Bill Gates is going to give me all of his money:

.


It needs a little tweaking but I'm sure you can see I'm right just from what there is now.



Cesspool please.

Now that I am on my second day of programming, I have solved a lot of niggling questions that I had. The collision detection which I didn't like, because it was maths has been re-written. The problem with a simulation is that you have to check so many collisions, and you have to wonder if the Universe handles the particles, or the particles handle themselves. When two things bump together, they have to know that they have bumped together. Particles don't have eyes, I don't know if they have touch. Without adding a physics cheat for bump you are stuck. Well.. I thought about cell division. Everything has to evolve, so cell division must be part of a particle, but not as complex. It was when I started wondering how to improve my collision detection for thousands of particles that I realised that cell division is an easy way to store pre-determined collisions. If you mirror something, you also mirror its internal collisions. And by realising this, and entangling the particles, you solve the collision detection problem. That's strange though, because that is the best way for the Universe to control the particles, but multi-tasking individual particles wouldn't need to be so conservative.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Everything has to evolve

Yeah?
No.

It was when I started wondering how to improve my collision detection for thousands of particles that I realised that cell division is an easy way to store pre-determined collisions.

Apart from the word-salad can you see the slight problem here?
pre-determined

If you mirror something, you also mirror its internal collisions. And by realising this, and entangling the particles, you solve the collision detection problem. That's strange though, because that is the best way for the Universe to control the particles, but multi-tasking individual particles wouldn't need to be so conservative.

This goes beyond word-salad into complete incoherency.
Typical Paxton post.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I'll let you look for problems where science doesn't agree, because you are only finding problems in science compared with the Theory Of Everything. So you are only finding problems in science.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I like the Avatar.
Einstein with Pincho on it.
Heh heh.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'll let you look for problems where science doesn't agree, because you are only finding problems in science compared with the Theory Of Everything. So you are only finding problems in science.

I see. So effectively you're admitting that what you're doing is not science? (As if we needed the admission).
But you post on SciForums - a pro-science board.

One more hint: the problems in your posts aren't just with science, they're with reality.
Keep taking the meds and stop posting.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I see. So effectively you're admitting that what you're doing is not science? (As if we needed the admission).
But you post on SciForums - a pro-science board.

One more hint: the problems in your posts aren't just with science, they're with reality.
Keep taking the meds and stop posting.

The forum is called PseudoScience.. that suggests not science. I dislike science so I'm happy to be dis-associated with it so long as PseudoScience allows The Theory Of Everything to be none science.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I dislike science

Then you have no business attempting or claiming to be involved in a 'theory of everything'.

so long as PseudoScience allows The Theory Of Everything to be none science.

If you aren't doing science then you can't have a theory of everything. How can we test your 'theory of everything'? By experiments and observations. How do we tell your theory from similar ones? Accurate experiments and observations. How do we tell your work is accurate? With precise quantitative predictions being tested by precise experiments. How do we obtain such predictions? Using a mathematical formulation of your claims. /

And what is the name for this methodology? The SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

If you have no interest in the scientific method then it necessarily follows you don't have a theory of everything because a theory is only a theory because it was an hypothesis which was tested using the scientific method and tested and tested and tested and found to succeed each time. You cannot get a theory (in the formal sense of the word) without considering the scientific method.

Typically, nobody takes it seriously. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician. I'm an artist,

You've a naive ignorant tool.

they control a single particle.. a Pinchon

Calling a particle which hasn't been observed after yourself is equivalent to burning "I'm a deluded crank" into the sky using hundreds of supernova explosions. But then we knew that.

If you have a model which can do anything the universe does then I want you to tell me the trajectories 3 electrons move in if they are held stationary in an equilateral triangle of side length 1, within a background magnetic field whose direction is orthogonal to the triangle's 'face' with norm |B| = 1 (in each case natural units are used) and then released.

This is a simple problem, the sort a 1st year doing electromagnetism could do. Since we can already model it a theory of everything should be able to too. Let's see it.

I bet you won't do it.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Then you have no business attempting or claiming to be involved in a 'theory of everything'.

If you aren't doing science then you can't have a theory of everything. How can we test your 'theory of everything'? By experiments and observations. How do we tell your theory from similar ones? Accurate experiments and observations. How do we tell your work is accurate? With precise quantitative predictions being tested by precise experiments. How do we obtain such predictions? Using a mathematical formulation of your claims. /

And what is the name for this methodology? The SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

If you have no interest in the scientific method then it necessarily follows you don't have a theory of everything because a theory is only a theory because it was an hypothesis which was tested using the scientific method and tested and tested and tested and found to succeed each time. You cannot get a theory (in the formal sense of the word) without considering the scientific method.

You've a naive ignorant tool.

Calling a particle which hasn't been observed after yourself is equivalent to burning "I'm a deluded crank" into the sky using hundreds of supernova explosions. But then we knew that.

If you have a model which can do anything the universe does then I want you to tell me the trajectories 3 electrons move in if they are held stationary in an equilateral triangle of side length 1, within a background magnetic field whose direction is orthogonal to the triangle's 'face' with norm |B| = 1 (in each case natural units are used) and then released.

This is a simple problem, the sort a 1st year doing electromagnetism could do. Since we can already model it a theory of everything should be able to too. Let's see it.

I bet you won't do it.

That's a simple one, they move into adjacent empty quark holes, next.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The forum is called PseudoScience.. that suggests not science.

Correction: it means something that may or not be scientific.
And, since you're so hot on what this forum actually is why do you ignore the rules?

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

So far you've offered nothing but trivial speculation.

I dislike science so I'm happy to be dis-associated with it so long as PseudoScience allows The Theory Of Everything to be none science.

You don't have a "Theory of Everything".
For someone who says he's happy to have no association with science you have a peculiar insistence on (mis) using scientific terms.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Correction: it means something that may or not be scientific.
And, since you're so hot on what this forum actually is why do you ignore the rules?

So far you've offered nothing but trivial speculation.


You don't have a "Theory of Everything".
For someone who says he's happy to have no association with science you have a peculiar insistence on (mis) using scientific terms.

There are no scientific terms. My version of science is called Pinchoism, and it means 'To Find The Truth', so it's not science, it's factual, and natural. Pinchoism is to use nature as nature, no maths, no G for God pulling stuff in with his magic hands. This is the real Theory Of Everything, not science.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Correction: it means something that may or not be scientific.
And, since you're so hot on what this forum actually is why do you ignore the rules?

So far you've offered nothing but trivial speculation.


You don't have a "Theory of Everything".
For someone who says he's happy to have no association with science you have a peculiar insistence on (mis) using scientific terms.

There are no scientific terms. My version of science is called Pinchoism, and it means 'To Find The Truth', so it's not science, it's factual, and natural. Pinchoism is to use nature as nature, no maths, no G for God pulling stuff in with his magic hands. This is the real Theory Of Everything, not the religion called science.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

You tell 'em Pincho.
So long as you stay in Pseudoscience they can't touch you.
It's like sanctuary in a church in the olden days.

 

[Dywyddyr]

so it's not science, it's factual, and natural

Wrong.
You have no facts.
And so far the only "natural" part is our assumption that your lunacy is not artificially induced.

Pinchoism is to use nature as nature, no maths, no G for God pulling stuff in with his magic hands. This is the real Theory Of Everything, not the religion called science.

Bullshit. You don't (one more time) have a "theory of everything" since what you have does not meet the requirements to fit the definition of "theory".

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Wrong.
You have no facts.
And so far the only "natural" part is our assumption that your lunacy is not artificially induced.


Bullshit. You don't (one more time) have a "theory of everything" since what you have does not meet the requirements to fit the definition of "theory".

Theory sounds perfect to me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.

So look at, and view my videos as I create the Universe from scratch.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Theory sounds perfect to me...

Yeah? Read it again:

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

What explanations can you give? What predictions can you make? Bearing in mind that you have eschewed maths and science then, by definition, you cannot provide anything other than some sort of handwaving - "uh, my "theory" predicts that er, something is is going to happen and it'll happen, um, sometime".
Or:

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration.

What "true statements" are involved in your "theory"? So far, none.
I could give further examples, but there should be no need.

So look at, and view my videos as I create the Universe from scratch.

Fail again. Since you have already stated that that programme incorporates (or will incorporate) predetermined collisions. All you've got is a set of graphics (that do NOT start from a single entity, despite your claim) and do... bugger all.
How useful is that? What does it tell us? (Apart from confirming that you've got far too much time on your hands).

 

[Pincho Paxton]

The Universe includes predetermined collisions, they are called Entanglement. Two photons miles apart bump one another. I use the same collision as the Universe, my program is an emulation of the Universe. No cheating.