bodhi at Mon, 27 May 2024 07:32:46 UTC No. 16195409

>>16195354
based gary

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 07:59:13 UTC No. 16195428

>>16195354
Gary's got good ideas, but the universe is not a grid.
More likely we'd have to assume every cell is linked to evey other cell, and distance works as some kind of resistance like in electrical circuits.

I can't figure out how such a layer would evolve states though, not to mention there should be at least one more layer above it because we need something for quantum mechanics...

If the universe was designed by an intelligent being and it's running more instances in parallel, there's a chance it was tuned to prioritize some metric, like the production of new information.
This could be achieved by making the system itself produce randomness and feeding it back to itself, instead of relying of purely outer randomness.

Might explain how astronomical chances happen that bit more often than they should. Likely a small effect, but it adds up.

The alternative is not very intelligent, calculating all possible outcomes without prioritization would lead to many instances where nothing of note is happening.
It all boils down to if we have an intelligent creator or not.

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 08:01:07 UTC No. 16195431

>>16195354
i'd firstly run it on a computer of sand and stone, then i'd broadcast the live feed of me making and running the code globally and also send a fax of the sand and stone code into space through radio, after that i just chill and wait, if it is actually the equasion of everything then something would happen
if it isnt nothing would happen, ez.

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 08:03:59 UTC No. 16195436

>>16195428
if you are running the universe, you are probably doing quite a lot of parallel processing, and if you are running the entire universe, what is an infinite more sub calculations in the infinite run?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 08:33:52 UTC No. 16195470

>>16195436
you are extremely low iq

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 08:38:45 UTC No. 16195472

>>16195436
If I were to create the universe with ther goal of producing new information, then I would quickly notice that there is a vast number of instances where not much of note is happening.

While there might be worth in exploring all possible outcomes, wouldn't be more elegant to prioritize the successful instances?
Even with infinite processing power, I'd still have to calculate all these instances to know the next state, so I'd rather get the low hanging fruits earlier than later.

Astronomical chances are infamous for happening that bit more often than they should, which begs the question.

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 08:39:41 UTC No. 16195474

>>16195470
nuh uh, also i dont think it even matters tbf, idgaf if we live in a simulation or not or if we do, how we can break it. life is real enough for me and figuring out the nuances about this real or not real world is what makes me feel good

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:35:04 UTC No. 16195512

>>16195354
you need to make a thread here only to get called a faggot. that's the law.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:41:06 UTC No. 16195525

>>16195354
>what if it turns out its shit and you're not that smart?

Yeah just go on with your life OP

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 16:53:22 UTC No. 16196112

>>16195431

Beam the equation of everything into the dark forest hoping fir a reaction... what could possibly go wrong!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:03:16 UTC No. 16196127

>>16195525

But how would someone even know if it's right or wrong considering academics make a big show about how they throw away any submission related to unified physics, and mock people for even trying?

Imagine an unknown, non-academic, really did solve it. What even are their options? I've asked this question to academics before and they universally say, essentially "physics has become too complex for an unknown person from outside the field to contribute meaningfully"... OK, but that was not the question. Even when asked a fantasy, fictional, made up question they duck-and-dodge and refuse to answer. Yet they will spend all day hypothesizing about unfalsafiable ideas like multiverses, simulation theory, string theory.... where they draw the line is imagining a universe where someone who hasn't paid into their system are able to contribute to scientific understanding.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:09:02 UTC No. 16196133

>>16196127
what is the theory if you think it is right?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:24:18 UTC No. 16196144

>>16196133
>what is the theory if you think it is right?

The idea is that the universe can be simulated as a continuous real number grid with numbers averaging locally, continuous and simultaneously. That's the core algorithm. Everything else is emergent complexity. You can see that algorithm simulated here:

https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:25:36 UTC No. 16196148

>>16196112
hoping FIR a reaction

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:26:09 UTC No. 16196150

>>16196144
>continuous real number grid with numbers averaging locally,
I'm not an expert but what does that do? Does that look any different from the actual universe?

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:29:46 UTC No. 16196158

>>16196144
quantum physics are cosmic rays messing with the cells in god's computer

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:32:21 UTC No. 16196159

>>16196150
well, we havent gotten the microscopes to see small enough to see if there is if there isnt a grid, but what it proposes is that the entire universe is a grid with each cell having a number with dictates what it is and how it is affected and how it affects neighbouring and surrounding cells, you can think of what that means for yourself.

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:36:54 UTC No. 16196163

also this was done in excell

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:39:22 UTC No. 16196165

>>16196150
>Does that look any different from the actual universe?

It sure looks like the actual universe to me... hard to imagine such a simple equation produces everything seen in that video if there isnt something fundamental about it... if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

And that equation was not brute forced. It was logiced too. It was, "if everything we knew about the Universe is true then this one equation should be able to simulate it because it satisfies all the requirements needed", and so it was simulated, and... I'll be damned!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:42:42 UTC No. 16196169

>>16195428
>I can't figure out how such a layer would evolve states though, not to mention there should be at least one more layer above it because we need something for quantum mechanics...

The simulation is ideally infinite. Depth and scope. The image is a simplification. Quantum mechanics would therefore be an emergent phenomenon into scale coupled with intrinsic limitations of our observation methods out of scale.

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:47:32 UTC No. 16196175

>>16196169
you know, if we figure out quantum mechanics and are able to simulate it 1:1 we could overlay this on top of it and figure out how they relate, we could automata our way to a unified theory.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 17:57:40 UTC No. 16196183

>>16196175

Yes!

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:05:19 UTC No. 16196199

>>16196127
This has nothing to do with whether someone is an academic or not and everything to do with whether the stuff they're rambling about is nonsense or not. Understand that journals get A LOT of submissions from randos claiming to be a meaningful theory of everything, and in every single case I've reviewed or heard of where they've been denied, it was because they all start off with this thin veneer of credibility and then immediately devolve into the same old magic number music of the spheres metaphysical mumbo jumbo we've seen a thousand times from other nutjobs.

Does it mean that meaningful research can't come from outside of academia? Of course not. I've peer reviewed some terrific experimental papers from amateurs that I've recommended for publication - those people knew their shit, and were thorough and concise in presenting their results.

In Gary's case, he's managed to produce some very pretty spreadsheets in Excel using what is (if I'm parsing out his rambling and occasional glimpses of actual Excel code correctly) a pretty rudimentary finite-difference-method PIC code. In fact I'd be willing to bet that the combination of time differences and spatial averaging he's doing probably works out to be equivalent to a numerical approximation for solving a wave-like 2D PDE. It should come as no surprise, then, that the results of the computations produce behaviors seen in other discrete systems that satisfy wave-like PDEs.

But making some pretty spreadsheets is all he's really done here, and his ramblings about quantum physics and relativity have no correlation to any of the stuff he's actually showing in his Excel calculations. Is it interesting? Sure, I guess. Has he unlocked the mysteries of the cosmos? I'm gonna have to say no.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:06:38 UTC No. 16196203

>>16196127
Well yeah its hard battle, everytime, do you know how much it took for example for people to finally believe Einsteins relativity?

Roteman at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:08:38 UTC No. 16196205

>>16196199
well to be fair he did make this entire thing because he saw the waves appear after doing the computations by hand pen-paper style, 3rd eye emerging??? /j

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 18:42:41 UTC No. 16196266

>>16196199
This is the jealousy of the academic who fails to see the universe is a blur function. So pathetic, but also stupid too. Really sad state of affairs when a schizo evokes this visceral reaction from the ebony towers.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 19:08:21 UTC No. 16196295

>>16196266
Prove him wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:16:51 UTC No. 16196381

>>16196199
>words words words

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:31:33 UTC No. 16196421

>>16196144
What's being shown in that video is a very trivial sim of a heat equation. The enthusiasm is kinda adorable tho.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:39:45 UTC No. 16196438

>dude I know everything about the entire universe!!
>omg I'm so smart an sheeiiiiiiiitttt!!!
>I'm like god or something!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:45:28 UTC No. 16196449

>>16196421
Your academic jealousy is pathetic.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:51:37 UTC No. 16196459

>>16195354
How does this explain consciousness?

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 20:57:50 UTC No. 16196476

>>16195354
Well, it depends on if you want to give your life that additional meaning. I hope you're rigorous enough to challenge your own ideas, because I cannot challenge it not being able to understand your ins and outs, nor are peer of the peer-reviews the true peers.
As they say, life may be much more interesting, if you consider your troubles an adventure.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 21:40:18 UTC No. 16196564

>>16196421

It's clearly not though. Heat equations don't have stable structures like that.

Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 22:51:32 UTC No. 16196708

>>16196564
>Heat equations don't have stable structures like that.
Depends on his exact setup is - if his numerical operations are acting like a numerical approximation of a pure diffusion equation, then sure, it should just diffuse out to the limits of the grid, but if his method is generating a second-order time derivative-like term in the approximation or generating a mix of positive and negative coefficients, or something that's acting like a convective term, or behaving like a source or sink, or any one of a hundred other things he could easily end up with stable structures.

It's hard to reconstruct his methods because his video is pretty much one long incoherent ramble that only occasionally shows what he's actually fucking doing underneath all the pretty colors.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 02:03:30 UTC No. 16196950

>>16196127
You're correct that academia is absolutely hostile to the perceived "layman". Understandably, like one of the above poster said >>16196199 I'm sure they get a million people a day coming to them with actual and unironic schizo babble so it's natural they've taken a dismissive attitude to outsider suggestion.

But on the other hand as you said, many of those who are credentialed also come up with an equal amount of schizo babble. They are only human and they have egos, so when faced with the reality that they just might be making shit up, they can fall back on their academic prestige and instead claim it to be groundbreaking theory. They project their unfalsifiable ramblings onto reality, and then use that as evidence that the universe is "even crazier!" than initially assumed. The irony of course is that I would be considered the "uneducated crack pot" for suggesting that you don't have to invoke astral magic (under the guise of physics) as they do to explain things.

They've created a centralized authority that currently borders on the theologian. If they insist the snake can talk, you can't say otherwise unless you're a "scholar" on the topic. How do you get to be a scholar on the topic? By adhering the centralized authority. Their natural skepticism of the outsider-schizo has blinded them to valuable insights. I wonder how many truly groundbreaking suggestions have gone into the wind over the decades due to the gate-keeping? I guarantee it's more than zero. It doesn't help that this circus is propped up by your garden variety "I fucking love science" midwit redditor who gets an ego boost out of subscribing to an inherently esoteric doctrine because it's branded as Science™. If it were more simple, they wouldn't be able to feel intelligent.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 02:30:40 UTC No. 16196982

>>16196950

This. Every word.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 11:04:33 UTC No. 16197509

>>16195354
if you did you could make physics simulation like video game, matrix, but you didnt solve shit so you cant, larper

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 11:44:14 UTC No. 16197558

>>16196564
If his method is averaging the adjacent cell values for every cell it's literally the simplest possible 2d heat/diffusion eq. He also seems to allow negative "temperatures" which of course enables stable structures, because there will be +/- boundaries that average out to constant values. You can play around with it yourself here: https://visualpde.com/basic-pdes/heat-equation.html

Other than that it's a great dunning-kruger demonstration. How full of ys do you have to be to think nobody has ever thought of this? He doesn't talk like a literal retard so it must be some kind of heavy narcissism.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 13:56:17 UTC No. 16197713

>>16197558

Evolution theory was not that complex either. Neither was heliicentricism. Who knows why academia is so slow to change. Who even cares, especially these days. The internet and AI have made academia largely irrelevant.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:44:18 UTC No. 16197941

>>16197558
>the simplest possible 2d heat/diffusion eq. He also seems to allow negative "temperatures" which of course enables stable structures

That's the argument. Yeah. Most people don't get it. they don't even understand what Gary is trying to say. The theory is that the universe is an infinite, continuous diffusion/ condensation algorithm, and that's the simplest "most elegant" equation for it.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:46:27 UTC No. 16197947

>>16197941

And the equation transfers super well to 3d computational environments too. Really remarkable to witness the, frankly, retorically violent opposition to such a simple theory over the past few year. Has been bizarre and eyeopening. Academia truly deserves everything that people have been saying about it

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:49:51 UTC No. 16197950

>>16197947
>Academia truly deserves everything that people have been saying about it

And in no way was that my opinion when I first started noticing this. But it's like, "Oh, okay, you all harrass people for presenting ideas in goodfaith... people who actually care about truth. burn it all to the ground, so be it"

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 17:53:25 UTC No. 16197955

First I would make money with it

Roteman at Tue, 28 May 2024 19:02:34 UTC No. 16198062

>>16197955
first you'd have to patent it, and its quite difficult to patent code which is on the internet, plus the idea of an automata like this would get so popular so fast that it would become public

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 20:58:05 UTC No. 16198197

>>16195354
This looks like some binary fun I've been working on, except mine is focuses on how there are different inverse/balanced values and the "flow" between them and how it relates to organic patterns (ie binary fission, plants growth, fluid dynamics, etc). Also how certain values relate to each other. I think it's something like synesthesia but where numbers are values (rather than symbols) which have density/weight instead of colors. Who made this? I gather his name is Gary. Where can I find more of his work?

But to answer the question, I'd try to share with whoever will listen. When I've tried sharing my "patterns" there's a range of reactions from "that's a smart thing" (without comprehending it at all) to "you're having a psychotic breakdown" lol. So I don't/wouldn't push it but patiently enjoy the effects of the knowledge on myself/my life. Historically so many radical thinkers have been "burnt at the stake" before their ideas take root, pushing too hard only leads to demise, resentment, and/or a prideful isolation. Once you start wearing the lense of the "binary" universe, they're impossible to take off. I've gone on with my life but only share online to avoid the "what?" vibes. We all want to be understood, and to share delights we've found in our journey. If no one will accept that gift, it is lonely. But life is about experience and understanding the logic/gears behind it doesn't make it more or less enjoyable. I snuggle with my daughter, play fetch with the dogs, no one calls me names. I just do binary patterning in my free time hoping one day I'll find my people.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 21:01:03 UTC No. 16198199

>>16198197
Another model focusing on the lattice model. There's no one model that shows everything so each one focuses on a different angle.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 21:26:50 UTC No. 16198226

>>16198199
Another one with more flat inversions

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 21:37:43 UTC No. 16198243

>>16197950
>you all harrass people for presenting ideas in goodfaith
Because nothing about the presentation of the material from OP has been in good faith - you have a group of people posting in this thread who have already made up their minds that Gary has stumbled upon the Sacred Truth of the Cosmos, and that anyone who even suggests otherwise is one of the Soulless Minions of Orthodoxy come to burn you all at the stake as martyrs.

That's not arguing in good faith - that's psychosis.

He made a simple diffusion sim in Excel. I did the same thing in Python in thirty minutes.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 23:51:22 UTC No. 16198403

>>16198062
Pazhitnov didn't patent Tetris, but was payed a million of dollars and hired by the company who made millons on that game. So if you did discover something important, there are plenty of ways to monetize on it. Also you cannot patent scientific discoveries.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 00:05:08 UTC No. 16198414

If you answer the question about why the helium dimer is the quanta of gravity, you win the game OP.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 07:19:19 UTC No. 16198812

>>16197941
>they don't even understand what Gary is trying to say
He's trying to say those colored shapes look like his high-school/popsci idea of particle physics, therefore it's the ultimate "theory" for particle physics. By ignoring 99% of known physics one can of course come up with super simple and "elegant" theories. I mean it's almost cute in its cluelessness, but then again, retards who spread their retardation (much like in a diffusion model) make me increasingly angry, because it seems to take a toll on public discourse.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 08:52:17 UTC No. 16198894

>>16198812
>"known" physics

There has been no such thing for 70 years now

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 08:55:17 UTC No. 16198897

>>16195354

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 11:24:22 UTC No. 16198992

>>16198894
Try reading a book instead of listening to yt entertainers like Weinstein etc.

Btw, I checked out Gary's optimum college website and wouldn't you know it, he turns out to be a common scammer. Go ahead and pay him 149$ to find out the secrets of the universe bro, combine it with Hustler's University and you're set for success.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:20:59 UTC No. 16199024

>>16198243
>He made a simple diffusion sim in Excel. I did the same thing in Python in thirty minutes.

No one claimed it was difficult. Just the opposite, actually. The word is elegant

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:27:11 UTC No. 16199027

>>16198812
>make me increasingly angry

Calm down, fren

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:29:22 UTC No. 16199028

>>16198992
>149$

Holy shit! That's a lot for college! My college was free because tax payers paid it for me, was a degree in women studies. How about you?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:35:36 UTC No. 16199036

>>16199028
>My college was free because tax payers paid it for me

Of course the college I attended to earn my womens studies degree was shut down most the time due to covid, and then because of protests, and then our president resigned for falsifying all her research papers which themselves were actually plagerized, so my college experience was the average I would say

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:48:39 UTC No. 16199050

>>16197947
>Really remarkable to witness the, frankly, retorically violent opposition to such a simple theory over the past few year.

Yep

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 13:05:37 UTC No. 16199058

>>16199027
What's the pic of quantum fluctuations supposed to tell me? They're not a new idea, they don't "solve physics" in any way, and they have nothing to do with his deterministic diffusion model.

>>16199028
By all means, go get a degree from optimum college. I actually enjoy seeing talented scammers separate suckers and morons from their money, and always congratulate them. Be sure to add degrees from Trump's and Tate's universities and you practically got a PhD.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 13:14:46 UTC No. 16199063

>>16198992
I won't concede my point nor will I buy Gary's content.

You're just flailing. Physics has been pixie dust for a long time.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 14:58:39 UTC No. 16199163

>>16198197
>Once you start wearing the lense of the "binary" universe, they're impossible to take off.

Yep. I think more broadly its that once one starts seeing the universe as a unified computational system it's impossible to unsee / go back. They would have to burn me at the stake like Giordano Bruno because it would be impossible for me to recant without lying, and I'm not a very good liar - too idealistic. Fortunately I've also learned from Bruno, Semmelweis, Galileo, etc.. that badfaith authoritarians should not be submitted to or bent to... they do not mean well. fight until the end.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:07:19 UTC No. 16199175

>>16198243

Cool simulation! Stop listening to "authority" and simply take in the evidence. Remove all the language and words that muddle things. See the universe as it is, and make up your own mind about how the universe really works. You might be surprised how many patterns you overlooked. Cheers!

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:10:03 UTC No. 16199178

>>16199175
>ignores entire post
>PRETTY GIF! HE IS A BELIEVER! PRAISE BE TO GARY!
We’re reaching levels of retardation thy shouldn’t be possible.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:24:36 UTC No. 16199187

There can't be an equation of everything it's a stupid idea. Math is not everything. The universe is not mathematical. Math is just language really it's a way of describing things that are real. So it is always gonna be a subset of reality it can never be the whole thing. An equation of everything is just a cope.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:31:10 UTC No. 16199193

>>16199178
>HE IS A BELIEVER! PRAISE BE TO GARY!

Gary is a hardcore non-believer and is from the hardcore school philosophical "socratic" tradition that everyone should make up their own minds, i.e., "I could be wrong - make up your own mind". Your comment really feels like a projection coming from the current state of authoritarian academics that does behave in the way that you are describing. Really remarkable who alien this concept of open discussion and evidence based philosophy is to some people. It's like they are unable to wrap their minds around a sovereign mindset. Truly bizare. How were those people in raised? Where they raised in the church or religious home and that's why they don't understand the basic concept of people discussing ideas? Genuinely don't get it.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:25:57 UTC No. 16199266

>>16199187
>Math is not everything

so you believe in a non-quantifiable spirit, or?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 16:44:23 UTC No. 16199278

>>16199266
Not him but I think he's following the the logic of a sets. How can you prove the "math equation of everything" is not itself just a mere sub-set of a larger set derived from some other category of knowledge.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:23:17 UTC No. 16199316

>>16199278

Interesting. Still, I see no reason why a computer simulation cannot be "mapped over" observable reality. We know how atoms behave... create a simulation that behaves that way, from one equation. The "one equation" aspect is natural if everything in the universe is "connected" i.e. can affect anything else. It can as far as we know. Energy affects mass affects light affects gravity etc... etc... therefore it can all fit to one equation. We know mass & energy are fundamentally the same thing therefore they have the same variable. That leaves spacetime as a grid space. A concept called "emergent complexity" plays a big part in all of this. Complex systems from simple systems. Fascinating when people mistake advanced ideas for lack of knowledge of common ideas. Yes, I think we've all passed general physic & science competencies... have deep dived googke scholar etc... Best to raise the bar when coming to these discussions. Like, have you seen contemporary simulations of CMB and quantum physics? Cool. And what can you say those two disparate simulations gave in common? It doesn't take a PhD to study this sort of thing. In fact, in the 21st century those MOST interested will engage in self directed research

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:27:39 UTC No. 16199324

>>16198243

Oh, how amazing it is when you open your eyes. Stop looking for validation from human "authorities" and see the universe fir what it is! You just might find that the solution to life, the universe & everything is right before you - and you did it all yourself! Congrats!

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:30:09 UTC No. 16199331

>>16198243

How beautiful to see the universe :-)

Infinite depth and scope. The pattern eternally layered. A universe of perfect logic.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:32:10 UTC No. 16199334

>>16199024
>>16199324
>>16199331

Open.
Your.
Eyes.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:34:52 UTC No. 16199338

>>16199334
Proud like a god, don't pretend to be blind
Trapped in yourself, break out instead
Beat the machine that works in your head

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:43:03 UTC No. 16199349

>>16199334
>>16199338

Fight against the dark, light leads the way
Escape the shadows, the Earth turns on a new day

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:26:03 UTC No. 16200117

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:35:24 UTC No. 16200122

>>16196438
TSMT
People who egotistically leap to the preposterous conclusion that they understand the entire universe do so because they are insane. Its an absurd masturbatory coping mechanism.
Imagine presuming you know everything about the entire universe yet somehow you're still a failure in your real life down here on Earth with the mere humans.
>I know everything about they entire universe:
>Except how to get a girlfriend
>and how to get a job
>and how to pay my own bills

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:39:23 UTC No. 16200127

>>16199334
Close,
My,
Ass,

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:42:20 UTC No. 16200129

>>16200122

Yeah, if someone really figured out something fundamental about the Universe they would be married to a blonde hair blue eyed model, not be shitposting on 4chan

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:44:08 UTC No. 16200131

>>16200127
>Close,
>My,
>Ass,

Perhaps stay off grindr?

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:49:44 UTC No. 16200135

>>16200122

>>16200122
>TSMT
>People who egotistically leap to the preposterous conclusion that they understand the entire universe do so because they are insane. Its an absurd masturbatory coping mechanism.
>Imagine presuming you know everything about the entire universe yet somehow you're still a failure in your real life down here on Earth with the mere humans.

But seriously, Gary's theory is pretty simple: the universe is an infinite, continuous diffusion / condensation algorithm

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:53:48 UTC No. 16200140

>>16200129
>Yeah, if someone really figured out something fundamental about the Universe they would be married to a blonde hair blue eyed model, not be shitposting on 4chan

This should be a requirement of anyone who submits a theory of everything. Are they married to a blonde haired blue eyed model? If so then their theory can be reviewed. If not then into the trash!