However, despite the author’s expertise in other areas, this particular paper has not yet been cited by any other author. https://scholar.google.com/scholar… While a steady state alternative *is* fascinating, I’d need it to go through a peer review process. It looks like it’s in preprint and it looks like he gave a talk somewhere in “Saturday–Tuesday, March 31–April 3 2012; Atlanta, Georgia” http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR12/Event/170431 but i can’t give it much weight beyond being a fascinating possibility put together by a respected physicist whose respect unfortunately does not extend to this area of his research.

However, despite the author’s [read full article]

 

Math has a hierarchy built-in. Example: 1+2=3 The 3 can be derived from the 1+2, but the 1+2 cannot be derived from the 3. The = is not = but establishes a hierarchy that nearly always requires one side to carry more complexity than the other., except in cases where 3=3 for example. This is a flaw in the Turing terms, which tests for computability from L to R but not from R to L. You cannot derive sources from final product. This is the power of studying chaotic systems over solely the final effects of chaotic systems which are simple results. An integer. A fact. A fraction. A statement – is usually lacking that which makes it up. Order arises from chaos. Order imposed “from above” meets resistance because chaos leading to order is the norm while artificial order does not usually reflect properly “what makes up the 3″. My question is: How can this be taught well so that it becomes a natural understanding, rather than an exotic thing?

Math has a hierarchy
[read full article]