User talk:71.0.146.150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dear user 71.0.146.150,

You reply to me on the talk page Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler)#Skolem_Löwenheim is rude an abusive. Please take note of the rules of conduct at Wikipedia:Civ and refrain from personal attacks in discussing matters about the content and quality of an article.Otto (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're here speaking a falsehood, Otto. I was perfectly polite, as the below-quoted exchange that you here refer to shows. Apparently you are confused and are thinking of your own behavior, which as the below exchange shows, was indeed rude and abusive.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, 71.0.146.150. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Otto (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Skolem Löwenheim[edit]

The article cites Tipler saying: "I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms". The Skolem Löwenheim theorem says that every infinite model is equivalent to a countable model (in model theory). A model with a finite number of axioms (or just one: the conjunction of these) is a different thing. This Tipler (I heard today for the first time about him on a forum about the Rybka chess engine :-)) seems to me indeed a lunatic. Otto (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing this paper are also "lunatics". Rather than charging professional mathematicians and physicists with lunacy due to your lack of understanding, it might help you if you were to read all of the Reports on Progress in Physics paper that you're quoting from. For example:

A major theoretical reason for thinking there is no fundamental difference between a finite number of postulates and a (countable) infinite number of postulates is the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem: Let M be a model for a collection T of constant and relation symbols. Then there exists an elementary sub-model of M whose cardinality does not exceed that of T if T is infinite and is at most countable if T is finite (Cohen 1966, p 18). The proof of this theorem uses a weak version of the Axiom of Choice (hereafter AC); see Boolos and Jeffrey (1974, pp 133 and 158). Skolem regarded this theorem as an argument that ZFC cannot form a 'reasonable' foundation for mathematics because it implies there is a countable sub-model for the uncountable set of real numbers (Yandell 2002, p 64). If we want an axiom system for the real numbers that yields only the uncountable real numbers as a unique model, we will have to have an uncountable number of axioms. If we regard the continuum as the fundamental entity in reality, and if we want the postulates giving the real numbers to yield only the real numbers, then the continuum must be governed by an uncountable number of postulates. A finite axiom system will yield a countable number of consequences, but so will a countable number of postulates. Our preference for a finite number of axioms may just reflect our human finiteness. I shall argue below that a countable infinity of axioms in the form of having a countable infinity of terms in the Lagrangian (all the invariants that can be formed from the Riemann tensor and all of its covariant derivatives) allow unitarity to force the finiteness of quantum gravity coupled to the SM of particle physics. It has been known for decades that even if you start the Hilbert action for gravity, the path integral will give you the entire countable infinity of terms, and these additional terms, if artificially suppressed, will yield a quantum theory of gravity that is either non-renomalizable, or not unitary. Conversely, if we accept quantum field theory, the fact that gravity is curvature (and recall that Cartan showed even Newtonian gravity is curvature—see Misner et al 1973), and locally special relativistic, then we have to accept the countable infinity of terms in the fundamental Lagrangian. Physicists have always hoped that when the equations of the Theory of Everything were found, it could be shown that there was only one model for this system of equations, namely the actual universe. What the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem demonstrates is that this hope cannot be fulfilled with a finite set of equations, or a finite set of constants, if the actual universe is actually infinite. If we regard the boundary conditions on the universal wave function as an 'axiom', then the boundary conditions on a continuous function will be in effect a set of axioms whose cardinality is that of the continuum. A system with a countable number of terms in the gravitational Lagrangian and an uncountable number of 'axioms' in the boundary conditions may, by the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem, have a unique (uncountable) model.

From pp. 909-910 of F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia. To acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing!

...comments? ~BFizz 08:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hello. Thanks for improving the references on Calculus Made Easy and Silvanus P. Thompson. I had added the link to the Linderholm review, but never got round to formatting it properly. (You may want to consider creating an account, but of course you don't have to.) Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Shreevatsa.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Teach the Controversy[edit]

Come my friend we all know that Frank Tipler didn't start out like Kent Hovind, but he sure did went down that slippery slope.

Tell me my friend why did so few other experts in the field offer their support or criticism of such a theory? Unless it is nothing more than the amalgamation of several stories mentioned in the Christian Bible disguised as science. Perhaps someday Intelligent Design unite with Omega Point Theory as part of some attempt to take over education of world. :) 69.230.165.230 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV report[edit]

Because of the way AIV works, when you make a report that includes a lot of different names, the bot will archive the entire report when the name that's at the top is blocked. Thus the other names did not get blocked when the first one did. Do you think that more actions is necessary? Here is your AIV report again, for convenience: [1] Soap 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, warnings (or perhaps more) might be called for for some, depending on their level of disruptive, uncivil, and/or nonsense edits (as revealed by their individual edit histories). At the end of the report I gave, I also asked that because of this recent behavior, "I also kindly request (in addtion to whatever actions or warnings are given to foregoing users) that the Omega Point (Tipler) article and the Frank J. Tipler article (just in case, as so far it's been left alone), and their associated Talk pages, either be watched for disruptive new edits or afforded some level of protection."
Thank you for asking.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Note: Disruption at article page, Omega Point (Tipler). Both of the IPs blocked. Both were contributing to the disruption. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

71.0.146.150 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am the one who requested intervention due to 58.96.94.12 (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS)'s repeated disruptive editing which violated WP:Truth, WP:NPOV, and contradict the many WP:Reliable Sources which the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article has, and his refusal to engage in discussion, despite being notified both on his Talk page and on the article Talk page. I have a long history of adding value to Wikipedia and this article, having written circa 95% of the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, including having added virtually all of the citations in it. I don't say this to claim ownership of the article, but to let you know that I have made valuable contributions to this article.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  07:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

71.0.146.150 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am the one who requested intervention. Since no specific allegation of disruption has been made against me, I am unaware of why I was blocked. :

In addition to that, my being blocked is conceptually peculiar because it sends the self-defeating message that one who tries to follow the rules and seek help through the recommended Wikipedia process will be blocked for his efforts. :

One of the last things that I would have any interest in doing is causing disruption to this article. To point out again, I have a long history of adding value to Wikipedia and this article, having written circa 95% of the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, including having added virtually all of the citations in it. I don't say this to claim ownership of the article, but to let you know that I have made valuable contributions to this article.

Decline reason:

Both IPs were being disruptive to the article, and so you were both blocked for 31 hours. My advice would be to ride out the remaining hours, and then continue with constructive editing. If you want to discuss the issues which lead to the disruption, then this can be done on the article's talk page, until a consensus is reached. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

71.0.146.150 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Responding to the previous, declined unblock request: :

Still no specific allegation of disruptive behavior has been made against me, so I am still unaware of why I was blocked. :

Phantomsteve stated: "If you want to discuss the issues which lead to the disruption, then this can be done on the article's talk page, until a consensus is reached." Consensus with whom, and about what? As I pointed out, I repeatedly informed 58.96.94.12 that his edits violated Wikipedia policy, but he refused to respond to or discuss the matter with me. And so I followed the recommended Wikipedia process of reporting disruptive behavior on the WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents page, and I was there told by Pilif12p's sock to report the matter on the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. :

So again, my being blocked is conceptually peculiar because it sends the self-defeating message that one who tries to follow the rules and seek help through the recommended Wikipedia process will be blocked for his efforts. :

Again, one of the last things that I would have any interest in doing is causing disruption to this article. I have a long history of adding value to Wikipedia and this article, having written circa 95% of the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, including having added virtually all of the citations in it. I don't say this to claim ownership of the article, but to let you know that I have made valuable contributions to this article.

Decline reason:

You want a specific reason, I will give you one: Edit warring at Omega Point (Tipler). In the future consider asking for page protection or initiate dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Hi, Beeblebrox. I wish I had been told about that before, because as you can see from Soap's inquiry of me and my response above, there have recently been a group of I.P. addresses that were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article and its Talk page, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations. Some people upon hearing of Tipler's Omega Point Theory become extremely upset.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered that I did not violate the Three-Revert Rule here (although no one accused me of that, that is what I assumed the block was for), as in this case I only reverted three times within a 24-hour period: [2], [3], and [4].
WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period."
Nor did I qualify to be blocked under the more vague category of "edit warring", because WP:Edit warring states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I repeatedly tried to engage in discussions with 58.96.94.12, but he refused to respond to or discuss the matter with me. So I wasn't engaged in edit warring per Wikipedia's definition of it, although 58.96.94.12 was.
Further, WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule states "Editors who engage in edit warring are liable (usually after warning) to be blocked from editing in order to prevent further disruption. While all edit warring behavior is liable to lead to such sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the 'three-revert rule' which is very often applied as a reason for blocks. This rule is set out below." No such warning was given to me in this case.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Information.svg You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are obviously based on the paranoia that ideologically motivated people are out to get Frank J. Tipler. Please stop with such accusations or else I will be forced to ask you to take a permanent wikibreak. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
You just replied to yourself (i.e., you replied to another post by you), which is fitting. You have a serious problem with imagining events that never took place, as the Wikiquette Alerts board shows [5].
You therein brought up a post by me there in response to Tim Shuba, wherein I mention, in response to something he said in his post, that I "edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them", of which post by me was made on 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC.
Your sockpuppet accusation was filed on 02:44, 21 June 2010 UTC [6].
Yet you quote my said statement from my 03:56, 20 June 2010 UTC post there and respond to it, "You've obviously brought up the SPI case." Though of course I didn't bring up the SPI case, since it didn't even exist yet.
I brought up your TeleComNasSprVen name in my 14:47, 25 June 2010 UTC post on that board, but I didn't say anything negative about you, so there was nothing said about you for you to come there to defend yourself against. All I said there was that in a conversation with you, 58.96.94.12 violated Wikipedia policy in an attempted outing. So you're imagining something that never happened in saying "If you didn't wish me on here, then simply don't slander me." Below is the entire sentence where I mentioned your name:

58.96.94.12 has repeatedly called me nasty names such as "crackpot", "nutter", "nut", and "crank", on his own Talk page [7], and in a discussion with User:TeleComNasSprVen on his Talk page where 58.96.94.12 engaged in an attempted outing of me: [8].

As you can see, I therein said nothing negative about you. So I certainly didn't accuse you "of conspiring with the above IP address with connecting you to the attempted outing; that's how you brought me up", contrary to your habits of phantasmagorical imaginings.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... copying and pasting. Blah, blah, blah, nonsense. I'll repeat since you apparently didn't get the memo: Your edits are obviously based on the paranoia that ideologically motivated people are out to get Frank J. Tipler. Please stop with such accusations or else I will be forced to ask you to go on a permanent wikibreak. Also, I gave out multiple warnings of your violations of NPA policy on your account's talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)