recursal/Fanatic-Fandom huggingface dataset:
Εσωτερική ροή χρόνου και εξωτερική κίνηση / internal timeflow vs external motion

(αφορά λάθος σε τεστ στο Coursera, καθηγητών αστροφυσικής του Πανεπιστημίου της Αλβέρτας)

## the balance between inner clock timeflow and external motion of the particle

You erroneously claim: 2. If you were watching a star collapse to form a black hole, the collapse would appear to take: Forever, not because you confuse internal timeflow with external motion (you speak about appearance, not ontological state of existence; actual state/condition) (and partial interaction absorption; because black holes absorb field vibrations of decaying particles before they become new particles).

You teach a mistake because you didn't study well the balance between inner clock timeflow and external motion of the particle. Canada has great physicists. Ask Canadian theoretical physicists. They know deeply. You physically harm me when you distort black hole theories.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

All things in the universe move at a constant speed. The speed of light. But they divide their constant speed in two parts: 1. inner timeflow (perception of time), 2. external motion.

Stars collapse into black holes in milliseconds, due to external motion and not due to their inner timeflow.

(I've noticed you are also confusing the Kerr black hole with the physical black hole which has the main Kerr form, but the Kerr black hole doesn't resolve the maximally degenerate central region.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

You don't have to like me.

Speak to Canadian theoretical physicists that weren't the main professors in this lecture series.

Tell them to teach you that everything in the universe moves constantly at the speed of light, and divides that speed in two: 1. internal timeflow and 2. external speed.

Don't ask the main physicists of this series of lectures who produced the mistake.

Ask theoretical physicists who speak as guests. They deeply know.

## excuse:

mistake: Gravity will extremely redshift the light.

What will actually happen: some light will redshiftedly escape, but most will be trapped in the photosphere.

Black holes don't have more gravity than what they have (being a black hole doesn't double the gravity). They are more compact, but that affects the area near the black hole. The light that escaped before the collapse of the star into a black hole will propagate normally through space if it's not near the event horizon.

The black hole itself will redshift the nearby light, but black hole formation is violent. A newly born black hole is never a calm ideal black hole, thus some light (X-rays, gamma rays, etc.) does escape from its surroundings.

see: special relativity or ask a physicist (the guest physicists are great)
Αθεϊσμός vs φιλοσοφικός φυσισμός vs επιστημοφυσισμός / Atheism vs philosophical physicalism vs scientific physicalism

## atheism vs philosophical physicalism vs scientific physicalism

Atheism (athéisme) is a weak metaphysical worldview because it doesn't include specific metaphysical answers. 'Scientific physicalism' (physicalisme scientifique) is stronger because it is based on the foundations of substantiality (David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, Max Tegmark, etc.), information theory, physics, neuroscience, chemical [origin] abiogenesis of life, etc. 'Philosophical physicalism' (physicalisme philosophique; common physicalism) provides answers during debates, but it doesn't rigorously analyze the foundations of substantiality.

Not believing in a self-caused cosmogonic person doesn't mean that:

1. You care about physicalist theories.
2. Your physicalist theories are of the same nature.

Not all antisupernaturalists have the same agenda. It's like claiming that all theists act as a consciously united and coherent group.
Κβαντική διεμπλοκή

## Entanglement breaking with a magical object or entanglement scrambling/encoding with a physical one

Dr. Lindsay LeBlanc made a huge mistake on her own field of study (not on black holes). She's intelligent and well educated to understand it. She erroneously claimed that entanglement breaking is useful for data transfer which all physicists (including her) know it's impossible. Quantum entanglement provides the substantiality of spacetime; without partial and complete entanglements the universe would be in an eternal Big Bang de-causality state (the Big Bang was an omnipointwise superluminal expansion of spacetime; omnipointwise because it didn't start from a central point, but each point of the previous old superluminally expanding universe, (each point when examined one by one and not by comparison superluminally = discausally / in a causality breaking manner expanded).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Physical black holes have a maximally dense region of degenerate matter (erroneously theorized black holes has unspatiotemporal singularities and ringularities = zero spacetime = insubstantialities = junky fallacies). If you throw an entangled particle in a black hole and you keep the other, you don't care much how the particle you throwed looks, but mostly you care about how it physically is. It decays into field vibrations to be absorbed by the black hole’s degenerate region. A simplistic answer is that the entanglement breaks and you detect a random collapse; but in reality entanglements don't break, but the become partial when they entangle with other systems. If you had a decoder you could recreate or decrypt the initial entanglement, but it usually becomes too scrambled and simple people call the very scrambled partial entanglement an entanglement breaking, but if we are simpletons we will never understand the deep causality of gravity.

ask Sean M. Carroll to teach you (good physicists already know)

## comment 1:

Entanglement breaking isn't a true entanglement breaking, but it is entanglement scrambling. During the big bangs (uncapitalized due to non-Penrosean cyclic cosmology) entanglements become scrambled with the newly formed matter. Entanglement breaking is a physical impossibility/entanglement breaking is impossible in nature. (Practically we cannot decode the entanglement scrambling/encryption, thus for a human observer most entanglement scramblings are irretrievable, except in some lab experiments).

## comment 2:

We have to maximally entangled particles. We entangle/scramble/encode the properties of one of the two particles to something else, we caused a complex entanglement/partial entanglement/encoded entanglement/encrypted entanglement between the two original maximally entangled particles. Entanglement breaking is impossible in nature. Ask Sean M. Carroll.
Preface: The Purpose of the Book

## Preface

### The Purpose of the Books

This book, the Book of Sigehold, is a collection of our stories. Stories of the Winterfolk, of Skarsind before the invasion, stories of the people that were broken apart of by the invasion of the Thule, and how we rose again under the banner of victory. More, these are the stories that permeate the land of Skarsind, and those that are born of Skarsind, compiled as we leave our land and relinquish it to the Imperial Orcs. Let this book be in part testimony of how Proud we are of the land, as well as the impartation of Wisdom for what the land’s new occupants can expect from these plains.

In the first chapter we have compiled stories before the coming of the Thule. At this time, there was no Sigehold. We were not one banner, but many, spread across the land. We were Star’s Reach, we were Leoding Hall, we were Hearthland Hall, we were Frosthorn Hold, we were the Hala of Od. Many of us don’t speak often of the halls that stood before, partially because we have lost too many and cannot disassociate our Skeins as having turned away from that tragedy, but therein lies our history, and the beginnings of our worth.

In the second chapter, you will find tales of the Thule invasion. These tales fascinate me, for they are not all true, they are some of them embellished and fanciful, but they are tales spun from pained hearts. We all deal with our losses in different ways, and those different ways can all be seen within this section.

In the third chapter, you will find tales of our hall since we came to Anvil. These are the stories and events that shaped us as a hall, which made us who we are, and that lead us to the decision to relinquish Skarsind to our Orc allies.

In the fourth chapter, some final messages from our hall to the Imperial Orcs, well wishes and promises, oaths and advice, all of them heartfelt and sincere.

The next chapters are down to us both. We will hold on to one copy of the book, and we give a second copy to the Skywise. As we leave the lands we were born to, we will carry our book into Hahnmark, and we will fill what remains of the book with what becomes of Sigehold Hall in the years to come. We give to the Skywise the book’s twin, the pages left blank so that they might do the same, and continue the tales of the land of Skarsind .

One day, we will bring these books back together, the Sigehold volume and the Skywise volume, and together they will make the Books of Skarsind. I hope that great value and worth can be found within these pages.

* Veikko
The Tale of Thandral Proudhart

Frosthorn Hala was an ancient Hala full of the proudest of the lineages, full of Summer magics, full of Changelings. If you asked any of Frosthorn when their hold had been founded they would have told you that their line predated the Empire, predated the written word, predated even the Trolls. We of Sigehold, only a few years old, we could not possibly gainsay them.

With his swept back antlers, his arrogant demeanour and his weapon, Frostforge, his was a distinctive figure amongst the artisans and warriors of Sigehold. Thandral was of the line of Thanes in Frosthorn. He and his sister fought with the Talon Sworn, a unit of soldiers proud to fight with Jussi under Ardith, the founder of Sigehold. But his Changeling blood, the knowledge within him that he had been born to lead, that caused Thandral to butt heads with our first Thane on more than one occaision.

Haughty and Proud though he was, the Changelings of the line of Frosthorn were brave and Thandral was no exception. He took to the battlefield for the Empire, for the Mark and for Sigehold many times. Swinging his immense hammer, blue with the enchanted ice it was made from, he cut down enemies left and right, cutting a bloody swathe through the barbarians. None who fought beside him doubted his valour, doubted his battle frenzy or his heroes intent. Once, in the retreat from Frosthorn he had lost his sweetheart, Roana, and she had been enslaved by the Thule. Thandral had been a boy, obeying his father and his Thane but when he met with his true love in Anvil, years later, to hear that rather than die, as he thought she had, she had been enslaved by the evil Thule he swore an oath. His oath, that he would not leave any friend behind to die upon the battlefield.

When he saw the Scop, Stonewater, dying upon the field of war as Wintermark retreated he leapt into the fray. His antlers stood proud against the sky, his enchanted hammer swept away the orcs as though they were butterflies. With one sweep Grendel went tumbling, with another swing their heads left their bodies and all the scop could see was the bloodied Changeling with the Ice Hammer standing over him. Thandral threw the scop across his broad shoulders and cursing that there was not more time to kill the Grendel forces he ran for the closing Sentinel Gate.

In Anvil the Grimnir confirmed that the Scop was dying and so gently Thandral of the line of Frosthorn did lay him down before his Thane that he might end his journey in comfort surrounded by his hall and friends. He made to leave and Stonewater bade him stop, for all that Scop could see as his eyes dimmed was the proudly bloodied and unbowed Changeling carrying him home, those antlers pointed to the sky, refusing to let the Grendel take him. And thus, with his dying breath the scop named him; Thandral Proudhart.

A name which we of the young hall of Sigehold can confirm Thandral of the Ancient Changeling line of Frosthorn, proudly lived up to.
Τελειότητα / perfection / ιδανικός πλατωνικός κόσμος / ideal Platonic world

**“One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn't exist.....Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist”**

―Stephen Hawking

(It is a profound statement (but a popular science statement; it needs elaboration on the terminology). We might claim that this is a popular science statement, because we have to define perfection (Penroseanism... Roger Penrose indirectly speaks about a pre-existing personhood which define the microtubular fallacy spins; also our universe IS cyclic, but the Penrosean mechanism is magical/antientropic at the critical point of the big bangs. What should we do: 1. eternal expansion, 2. if we really need to somewhat shrink the universe we can invent the two-staged big bang, with one weaker which leads to an omniuniversal black hole which rebounds when it reaches the maximal spatiotemporal degeneracy... but in order these two options work, we have to fix them mathematically to work... and after we finish we should be critical, make corrections and rejections). Sabine Hossenfelder has a similarly themed book: Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. But it's not the same for all cases (perfection might be a "statue universe" according to some; but that is a nonverse/non-universe according to the basic definition of spatiotemporal operations [no spatiotemporal operations = no true spacetime; statue ontological natures are a different category... most don't accept statue worlds as substantial, because substantiality has to be operationally exhibited. It's a topic on/a topic related to the battle between Max Tegmark and David Deutsch; a "statue world" is a mathematical tool but not a substantiality (doesn't meet the criteria). Max Tegmark and David Deutsch are complex thinkers and if we have a dialogue with them they might deviate from our idea about them; but their general ideas are close to my example.)
Πώς μαθαίνουμε μία ξένη λέξη;

## Πώς μαθαίνουμε μία ξένη λέξη (ή για την ακρίβεια μία οποιαδήποτε λέξη);

Μελετάμε:

1. το ελληνικό της ερμήνευμα
2. το ξενόγλωσσο ερμήνευμα
3. την ετυμολογία της λέξης
4. ελληνικά συνώνυμα
5. ξενόγλωσσα συνώνυμα
6. συναφείς όρους στα ελληνικά και την ξένη γλώσσα
7. σύγκριση με άλλες γλώσσες που ξέρουμε
8. μελέτη εγκυκλοπαιδικών άρθρων σε πολλές γλώσσες εάν ο όρος υπάρχει σε εγκυκλοπαίδειες (αν δεν έχουμε χρόνο τουλάχιστον την πρώτη παράγραφο)
Древо Стражи

Древо Стражи - это достаточно большое и древнее древо, расположенное в Строжайшем Лесу, что сам расположен в Строгом Лесу, что находится на северо-западе Северного Эссеса. Названо это дерево из-за Детей Стражи, которые живут вокруг этого древнего дерева и охраняют его. Возле этого дерева поселились Рыцари-Стражи, особенность которых в том, что у них и броня и оружие созданы и частей этого очень крепкого дерева. Рыцари-Стражи - очень сильный орден, который охраняет Строгий Лес от вторжений чужаков.

## Окрестности

На западе находится река Рамба, на востоке - река Лабалла и город Нуарск, на юге - земля Фэнтэзия, город Фэнтезя и Крепость Красный Циник, на севере, в Северном Тамдаре находится земля Градия, Сломанные Горы и Громогласье.

## Ингредиенты

1. Семена Стражников - из этих семян, которые можно собрать на Древе Стражи, из них можно создать специальные Сторожевые Деревья, на которых уже в виде плодов появятся Дети-Стражники.
Γερμανική γνωσολογική ανάλυση

Γερμανική ανάλυση της γνωσολογίας/epistemology.

(Η αγνωσία αφήνει ανοιχτή την πόρτα στη θρησκεία/μαγεία/παραβίαση της φυσικής. Ένα λάθος κάποιων μεταφυσικών αγνωστικών/αγνωστικιστών είναι ότι εκμεταλλευόμενοι το πρόβλημα της αξιωματικής μη πληρότητας [κανένα αξιωματικό σύστημα δεν είναι πλήρες] αποδέχονται έστω δυνητικά την εισαγωγή μαγικών αξιωμάτων. Αυτό είναι γνωσολογικό σφάλμα κάποιων αγνωστικών. Είναι σφάλμα, διότι μπορεί μεν να υπάρχει το πρόβλημα της αξιωματικότητας, δηλαδή σε οποιδήποτε αξιωματική θεωρία (axiomatic system/αξιωματικό σύστημα) πάντα προκύπτουν προβλήματα που απαιτούν την επέκταση των αξιωμάτων, όμως ΟΛΑ τα νέα αξιώματα είναι ΔΙΑΤΥΠΩΣΙΜΑ και ΟΡΘΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ. Δεν βασίζονται στην μαγεία/το μη διατυπώσιμο/την μη εφικτή οντικότητα.

Η εκμετάλλευση των γνωσολογικών προβλημάτων για την δυνητική εισαγωγή της μαγείας, είναι σφάλμα, διότι η μαγεία ΔΕΝ επιτελεί συγκεκριμένη διεργασία.

Άλλο σημαντικότατο ζήτημα, είναι ότι η μαγεία ΔΕΝ έχει οντικότητα/δεν έχει δική της υπόσταση/δεν ορίζεται εγγενώς/δεν αποδίδεται/δεν αποτελεί φαινόμενο/δεν έχει εσωτερική δομή.

Το Σύμπαν ΔΕΝ είναι μαγικό. ΔΕΝ είναι οντικά μαγικό.

Η οντικότητα αφορά το τί ισχύει σε κάτι πραγματικά,

ενώ η γνώση είναι η ερμηνεία των στοχαστών επί της οντικότητας.

Η μαγεία δεν δύναται να είναι ούτε οντική, ούτε μεθοδολογικά διατυπώσιμη γνώση.

\_\_\_\_\_\_

γερμανική αθεοαντιαγνωστική ανάλυση/

ανάλυση αθεϊστικής αντιαγνωσίας

Die Mainstream-Agnostiker sind offen für die Möglichkeit von Magie. Einige weniger verbreitete Agnostiker lehnen die Erkenntnistheorie ab. Sie verzerren das Problem der Axiomatizität. Alle axiomatischen Systeme sind unvollständig. Aber jedes neue Axiom, das hinzugefügt wird, wird immer analytisch beschrieben und ist nicht magisch. Die Agnostiker können das nicht verstehen. Auf dieser Seite unterstützen wir den antiagnostischen Atheismus.
Αλλομαθηματικά

αλλομαθηματικά/allomathematics: μαθηματικά βασισμένα σε μη κοινό (της κοινής μαθηματικής επιστήμης) αξιωματικό σύστημα (αξιωματικότητα)

## comment 1:

For allomathematics (mathematics based on different axioms) see Jacob Lurie (he doesn't use the noun allomathematics, see his work and also other related works).

## allomathematics and ontologically possible axiomatic systems [ontomathematics/ontoaxiomatics]

Please speak about allo- = different/ allomathematics based on different axioms

I mean ontological mathematics don't have to be useful for general calculations.

Are allomathematics compatible to scientomathematics?

First of all scientists have created many allomathematics (playing with different axioms).

Thus the hypernymic to 'physics foundations' question is about any possible substantiality (see: David Deutsch and Max Tegmark, but David Deutsch is more rigorous; David Deutsch isn't god. A field of study called "foundations of substantiality" should be created as a hypernym to "quantum foundations").

Is ontomathematics [which is usually allomathematical; thus not the prevalent scientomathematics]...

is ontomathematics compatible to scientomathematics?

Yes but not in one go.

Ontoaxiomatic systems being different from scientoaxiomatic systems (science usually wants general calculative ability; ontology wants universe-like entropic phase spaces) ARE compatible as separate problems which can occur, but NOT in one go. You cannot (usually, nearly in 100% of the cases) create a general conversion formula of two different axiomatic systems, but you can describe procedurally = nonsupernaturally specific problems. The supernatural not only is empirically impossible (I speak about rigorous scientific empiricism and not hallucinations or distorted semantics), but [the supernatural] is ontologically impossible, having not a causal connectome.

On the other hand to promote monomathematics = the erroneous claim that only one axiomatic system is rigorous, is wrong.
Γλωσσάριο / glossary

* **αιτιοδιαπερατότητα** (*αγγλικά*: causaltightness, causalproofness, causoimperviousness, causoimpermeability; the connectome of substantiality isn't causoimperviously/causoimpermeably stratified)): (αιτιοδιαπερατότητα ανά τάξη μεγέθους) Η θεώρηση ότι δεν υπάρχει απόλυτος/στεγανός διαχωρισμός των αιτιωδών αλληλεπιδράσεων ανά τάξη μεγέθους (βλ. Leonard Susskind). Η θεώρηση ότι μπορεί τα μεγάλα κβαντικά συστήματα να δρουν **σαν** κλασικά, αλλά: 1. οι κβαντικές αλληλεπιδράσεις συνεχίζονται (σε δικτύωμα και όχι αδιαπερατά/στεγανά διαστρωματωμένα/στρατοποιημένα) σε όλες τις τάξεις μεγέθους (εντός του πλαισίου της κβαντικής μηχανικής) και 2. η κλασική περιγραφή των μεγάλων κβαντικών συστημάτων είναι πάντα προσεγγιστική, δηλαδή κάποια φαινόμενα δεν δύναται να περιγραφούν κλασικά ακόμα και σε μεγάλες τάξεις μεγέθους. Οι κλασικές περιγραφές συνήθως εμφανίζουν μικρές αποκλίσεις, αλλά σε μεταβάσεις φάσης (phase transitions) και αλλά κρίσιμα φαινόμενα, οι κλασικές περιγραφές αποτυγχάνουν ολοκληρωτικά να περιγράψουν τα φαινόμενα, διότι δεν είναι επαρκώς αιτιώδεις, δηλαδή δεν περιγράφουν όλες τις αλληλεπιδράσεις.

Υπάρχει και η πειραματική αιτιοδιαπερατότητα (ατέλειες πειραματικής διάταξης).
Scop Naming Tales

The tales of the naming of various members of Sigehold can be found within The Book of Sigehold.

## Aelfric Nosebiter

Named for biting off of a nose of another child when he was thirteen.

## Ingrid the Unreasonable

Named for an incident in which she threw a frying pan at a scop. Her sisters used to find this tale very funny.

## Relnor the Coward

Named for his cowardice in the face of death.

## Ruhte Armbreaker

Named for her reaction to a man who would not believe she only danced at Liissa's brothel.

## Tauno - Leader of the the Fifteen

Named for leading fifteen Imperial Citizens back to Anvil after they had been left behind the lines and the Sentinel Gate had closed.

## Theo Brassballs

Named for his courage on the battle field.

## Ulwen the Wolf of the Mark

Named for her success in a challenge set by a Shaman mystic.

## Vanya Oddsbreaker

Named for her ability to dextrously break the unbreakable challenge of a casino owner.

## Veikko Bondforger

Named for the many bonds he made across the Mark and the Empire.
Γ΄ Ελληνική Δημοκρατία

**Τρίτη Ελληνική Δημοκρατία** ονομάζεται η περίοδος διακυβέρνησης του Ελληνικού κράτους από τη μεταπολίτευση (1974) μέχρι σήμερα και διαχωρίζεται ιστορικά από την περίοδο της Δικτατορίας των Συνταγματαρχών (1967-1974). Θεωρείται τρίτη περίοδος της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας, με τη δεύτερη περίοδο να αφορά το πολιτικό καθεστώς της Ελλάδας από το 1924 ως το 1935 και ως πρώτη περίοδο τα χρόνια της επανάστασης του 1821 μέχρι την εγκαθίδρυση της Βασιλείας του Όθωνα το 1832. Ο όρος "Μεταπολίτευση" (με την έννοια της αλλαγής πολιτεύματος) χρησιμοποιείται συνεκδοχικά και ως εναλλακτικός πολιτικός όρος για την ιστορική αυτή περίοδο (ιδίως για τα πρώτα της χρόνια).

Επίσης, ως Γ΄ Ελληνική Δημοκρατία θεωρείται στη συνταγματική ιστορία της Ελλάδας το δημοκρατικό πολίτευμα που εγκαθιδρύθηκε στη χώρα μετά τη Δικτατορία του 1967-1974 που επελέγη από τον ελληνικό λαό με το δημοψήφισμα της 8 Δεκεμβρίου 1974 για τη μορφή του πολιτεύματος και ολοκληρώθηκε με την ψήφιση του Συντάγματος του 1975.
Επιστημονικά πεδία ασύμβατα με τη θρησκεία

Συχνά αρκετοί θεϊστές ή θρησκευόμενοι (δεν είναι όλες οι θρησκείες άμεσα προσωποκρατικές) ισχυρίζονται ότι η επιστήμη συμβαδίζει με την θρησκεία (τις πολλές θρησκείες).

Υπάρχουν κάποια επιστημονικά πεδία μεταφυσικώς εδραία.

Σε αυτά η σύγκρουση με τη θρησκεία είναι άμεση.

(Το κοινό υπερώνυμο της θρησκείας, του αθεϊσμού και της αγνωσίας είναι μεταφυσική κοσμοθεώρηση. Η μεταφυσική φυσιοκρατία (αθεϊσμός) δεν είναι θρησκεία, διότι δεν προβλέπει την παραβίαση της αιτιολογήσιμης και εξηγήσιμης κοσμογονίας βάσει της φυσικής του μέλλοντος. Η μεταφυσική φυσιοκρατία δεν επιβάλλει μεροληπτικά το πάγιο προσωποκρατικό/νοοκρατικό κριτήριο στον φυσικό και τους άλλους υποθετικούς κόσμους. Αντιθέτως είναι ανοιχτή στις βελτιώσεις των θεωριών, οι οποίες κρίνονται διαρκώς από επιστήμονες. Η μη απόλυτη γνώση, δεν μεταβάλλει τις βασικές αρχές στοχαστικής εξέλιξης. Δεν αποτελούν όλες οι μεταφυσικές θεωρήσεις/θεωρίες θρησκείες.)

**Θρησκευτικώς ασυμβίβαστα επιστημονικά πεδία μελέτης**

• α. **προμεγαλοεκρηκτικές κοσμολογικές θεωρίες** (pre-explosive cosmogonic theories - Before the Big Bang in science) vs β. **αυταπόδεικτα προσυμπαντικός κοσμογόνος νοήμονας** ή **μαγικό απρόσωπο πεδίο** που παραβιάζει τον ορθολογισμό με ηθική ή/και αισθητική/έμμεση προσωποκρατία/νοοκρατία (οι θρησκείες που βασίζονται μόνο στην αισθητική προσωποκρατία/νοοκρατία είναι πολύ σπάνιες - σε αυτές το μαγικό θείο πεδίο παραβιάζει την φυσική μόνο για λόγους κοσμικής τάξης χωρίς να βοηθά καθόλου τους ανθρώπους [αυτή η θρησκευτική άποψη εμφανίζεται σε μεμονωμένους στοχαστές, δεν είναι συνήθης θρησκευτική θέση])
• α. νευροεπιστήμη/**εγκεφάλος με συστατικά** vs **υπέρπυκνη σημειακή προσωποσύνη/μερολογικό απλό** χωρίς συστατικά που δρα πριν και ανεξάρτητα από τον εγκέφαλο (οι θρησκευόμενοι θεωρούν ότι η προσωποσύνη προϋπάρχει των εγκεφαλικών διεργασιών και ότι δεν προκύπτει ως εκδήλωσή τους), με άυλη εκδήλωση στο τίποτα, το οποίο επιμερίζεται μεταξύ των διαφορετικών νοημόνων και των διαφορετικών ιδεών και μνημών τους χωρίς να προκύπτει σύγχυση. Το τίποτα που έχει ταυτότητα, χωρίς εξήγηση από τους θρησκευόμενους (οι θρησκευόμενοι θεωρούν ότι μόνο αυτοί πρέπει να κάνουν επίκληση στην μη εξήγηση, η οποία μάλιστα παραβιάζει τα μαθηματικά και την φυσική, ενώ αντίθετα όσοι έχουν αντίθετη γνώμη από αυτούς, πρέπει να εξηγούν τα πάντα αναλυτικά, τα οποία λεγόμενά τους απορρίπτονται όταν έρχονται σε αντίθεση με δόγμα - η αιτιώδης ανάλυση απορρίπτεται)
• **χημική αβιογένεση** (βλ. Jack Szostak στο YouTube, ζωή από χημική εξέλιξη και συνδυασμούς σε πολλά διαφορετικά περιβάλλοντα που συνεισέφεραν υλικών στη Γη) vs **θεία προέλευση της ζωής**
Βασίλειο της Ελλάδας

1830-1924 1944-1967

Τὸ **Βασίλειον τῆς Ἑλλάδος** (μονοτονικό-νέα ελληνική: Το Βασίλειο της Ελλάδας) ήταν η επίσημη ονομασία της Ελλάδας με την οποία και αναγνωρίσθηκε ως ανεξάρτητο κράτος σύμφωνα με τη Συνθήκη του Λονδίνου. Τα εδάφη του νέου αυτού κράτους υπήρξαν οι απελευθερωμένες περιοχές από την Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία μετά την Επανάσταση του 1821 και την μετέπειτα παρέμβαση των Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων. Επίσης, το χρονικό διάστημα από το 1935, όταν επανήλθε η βασιλεία ως το 1974 όποτε και αντικαταστάθηκε οριστικά από Αβασίλευτη Δημοκρατία.

## Οίκος Βίττελσμπαχ (1832-1862)

Οι Έλληνες είχαν ξεσηκωθεί ενάντια στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία το 1821, που οδήγησε σε μια προσπάθεια που διάρκεσε μέχρι το 1829. Η Ελλάδα από το 1828 ήταν κάτω από την ηγεσία του Ιωάννη Καποδίστρια, αλλά μετά από τη δολοφονία του το 1831 η χώρα οδηγήθηκε σε εμφύλιο πόλεμο. Σε αυτή τη φάση, οι μεγάλες δυνάμεις παρενέβησαν και αποφάσισαν να κάνουν την Ελλάδα βασίλειο. Στη διάσκεψη του Λονδίνου 1832, η Μεγάλη Βρετανία, η Γαλλία και η Ρωσία (οι μεγάλες δυνάμεις τότε) πρόσφεραν τον ελληνικό θρόνο στο 17 χρονών βαυαρικό πρίγκιπα Όθωνα του οίκου Βίτελσμπαχ της Βαυαρίας, ο οποίος έγινε ο πρώτος βασιλιάς της Ελλάδας. Ο Όθωνας ήταν ανήλικος όταν έφθασε στην Ελλάδα και έτσι το Συμβούλιο των αντιβασιλέων που κυβερνήθηκαν στο όνομά του μέχρι 1835. Το 1835, ο Όθωνας άρχισε μια περίοδο απόλυτης μοναρχίας στην οποία επέλεξε έναν σύμβουλο (συνήθως Βαυαρό) για να χρησιμεύσει ως ο Πρόεδρος του Συμβουλίου του κράτους. Κατά περιόδους, ο ίδιος ήταν το κύριος σύμβουλός του.

### Επανάσταση της 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1843

Από το 1843, η δημόσια δυσαρέσκεια για τον Όθωνα και τη " Βαυαροκρατία" είχε φτάσει σε σημείο αιχμής, ενώ παράλληλα ο λαός άρχιζε να προβάλλει τις απαιτήσεις για σύνταγμα. Αρχικά ο Όθωνας αρνήθηκε να παραχωρήσει σύνταγμα, αλλά μόλις αποσύρθηκαν τα γερμανικά στρατεύματα από το βασίλειο, προωθήθηκε στρατιωτικό πραξικόπημα. Στις 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1843, το πεζικό, που οδηγήθηκε από τον συνταγματάρχη Δημήτριο Καλλέργη και τον σεβαστό επαναστάτη καπετάνιο Ιωάννη Μακρυγιάννη συγκεντρώθηκε στο τετράγωνο μπροστά από το παλάτι στην Αθήνα. Οι επαναστάτες αρνήθηκαν να διασκορπιστούν έως ότου συμφωνήσει να χορηγήσει ο βασιλιάς σύνταγμα, το οποίο θα απαιτούσε να υπάρχουν Έλληνες στο συμβούλιο, να συγκαλέσει μια μόνιμη εθνική συνέλευση και ο Όθωνας να ευχαριστήσει προσωπικά τους ηγέτες της έγερσης. Ο βασιλιάς Όθωνας τότε πιεσμένος συμφώνησε με τις απαιτήσεις του πλήθους.

## Βασιλιάδες

### Βασιλεύς της Ελλάδος

* Όθων - 6 Φεβρουαρίου 1833 - 23 Οκτωβρίου 1862

### Βασιλείς των Ελλήνων

* Γεώργιος Α΄ - 18 Μαρτίου 1863 - 5 (π.η.)/18 Μαρτίου 1913
* Κωνσταντίνος Α΄ - 5/18 Μαρτίου 1913 - 30 Μαΐου/11 Ιουνίου 1917 και 22 Νοεμβρίου 1920 - 14/27 Σεπτεμβρίου 1922
* Αλέξανδρος Α΄ - 30 Μαΐου/11 Ιουνίου 1917 - 12/25 Οκτωβρίου 1920
* Γεώργιος Β΄- 14/27 Σεπτεμβρίου 1922 - 24 Μαρτίου 1924, 3 Νοεμβρίου 1935 - 23 Μαΐου 1941 και 27 Σεπτεμβρίου 1946 - 1 Απριλίου 1947
* Παύλος Α΄- 1 Απριλίου 1947 - 6 Μαρτίου 1964
* Κωνσταντίνος Β΄ - 6 Μαρτίου 1964 - 1 Ιουνίου 1973
Παντολογία

**Παντολογία** (pantology/wholeology) ή **μελέτη του παντός** ονομάζεται το σύνολο των κειμένων ή άλλων έργων (πχ βιντεοδιαλέξεων κτλ) με αντικείμενο την περιγραφή και τον ορισμό του Παντός (είτε λογικοτυπικά [in formal science] είτε παλαιοφιλοσοφικά (με απόρριψη της αυστηρής λογικοτυπικής μεθοδικής πληρότητας) - ρητορικά [με ελλιπή αιτιολόγηση/λογικά κενά στους ορισμούς των ορισμών/χάσματα διατύπωσης]).

Σημείωση: εδώ το Παν δεν είναι το οτιδήποτε τυχαίο ούτε η γενική γνώση, αλλά το υποθετικό σύνολο, σύστημα ή λίστα «Παν» (η λέξη παντολογία έχει και άλλες σημασίες)
Βαρύτητα / gravity

## Field causality of gravity; Lagrangian field tension

Every particle is partially entangled to each other (few are maximally entangled).

We should express Lagrangian mechanics with some range of acceptable solutions (not narrow solutions).

Spacetime is the result of applying many Lagrangian transformations in a region, from many different observational points. The range of each solution is biased towards the mean range of the overall solutions for that particular locality.

All particles move constantly at the speed of light, and they split it into external motion and timeflow. This is crucial to be included.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

We need a regional Lagrangian calculus, based on a richer Lagrangian description, which includes partial entanglements and light-speed motion splitting (into external motion and time flow).

(Each observer's solution should have a range; which becomes biased by the overall regional Lagrangian calculus.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Even if we cannot finalize it; we should evolve it mathematically in order future generations are helped.

## What is gravity? Local quantum decoherence partial entanglement noise? Yes.

What is gravity? Local quantum decoherence partial entanglement noise? Yes.

Gravity acts locally. Quantum decoherence constantly causes partial local entanglements. Thus the wave functions of particles average their properties. Imagine two boats moving in a river. One boat moves slower (parallelize it with an object with a slower timeflow due to its proximity to a planet's surface) and the other moves faster. PBS Space Time (Does Time Cause Gravity?): "The slow boater reaches out an oar which the fast boater grabs." Due to constant partial entanglements (quantum decoherence which occurs in noisy patterns) the fast moving object gradually loses speed (parallelize it with a particle having lowered the speed of its timeflow = internal clock). (PBS Space Time presented the fast moving boat moving towards the river bank due to torque. PBS Space Time didn't say "Quantum decoherence constantly causes partial local entanglements.". I will inform them to mention it in a remake.
Ανθυπερφυσικές αρχές

συνώνυμο: αντιυπερφυσικές αρχές

αγγλικά: antisupernatural principles

Το υπερφυσικό δεν είναι μόνο μη γνωρίσιμο και μη διδάξιμο, αλλά είναι και επιστημονικώς μη εικάσιμο, διότι δεν αποτελεί εκδήλωση ορθολογικής διαδικαστικότητας, δηλαδή δεν έχει οντολογική θεμελίωση/ ταυτοτικά χαρακτηριστικά/ ταυτότητα/ ύπαρξη. Οι υπερφυσιστές (supernaturalists) περιγράφουν γεγονότα όπως θα τα έβλεπε ένας παρατηρητής (υπερφυσικός εμπειριστής) και όχι την αξιωματική/ λογικοτυπική θεμελίωση κάποιας υποστατότητας.

Ο εμπειρισμός (empiricism) ενός μεθυσμένου ή ενός ατόμου που έχει παραισθήσεις δεν αποτελεί αντικειμενική περιγραφή της πραγματικότητας. Ο εμπειρισμός χωρίς επιστημονική μέθοδο δεν αποτελεί ασφαλώς τεκμηριωμένη περιγραφή της πραγματικότητας.

## index - γλωσσάριο

• supernatural empiricism: υπερφυσικός εμπειρισμός

• supernatural empiricist: υπερφυσικός εμπειριστής
Η υποστατότητα ή μη του απείρου / Is infinity real?

## text 1:

watch: Is Infinity Real? - Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube

But I am speaking about universe-like substantial/ontological infinity (ontomathematics vs scientomathematics)

Infinity is a process in nature. Each substantiality has to be local, connected to an infinite procedure, and being a result of an infinite procedure, but without the possible substantiality being infinite in itself. If we kill the procedurality of the infinite universe, we'll kill its self-causality. Self-causality requires a procedural ontology, not a statue-ontology.
Episodic planning vs language-based thinking / Επεισοδιακός σχεδιασμός vs ομιλητική σκέψη

Is language-based thinking the only form of thinking?
Is the only possible thinking language-based?
(see: episodic planning)

Is the only possible thinking language-based?
Are animals acting only without a plan?
Why people with Broca and Wernicke lesions appear to think, both behaviorally and according to neuroimaging data?

One other major proof that not all thought is language based, is that many (not all) criminals, knowingly that their actions are unethical and illegal, don't use their internal voice for introspectively admitting their actions or during the crime.

According to the mistaken on the topic Noam Chomsky, criminals who don't use language during the planning of their crimes, but use complex thought based on episodic planning, [they] deserve some "extenuating circumstances" recognition (to lessen the severity of their crime[s]), because "episodic planning" without language is either impossible or unspecific, which of course is totally wrong.

Noam Chomsky wasn't so analytical on the issue (he didn't expose his own fallacy; he didn't use my words) because if he were more analytical he wouldn't make that mistake.

Saying that language boosts thought is correct. Saying that only language-based thought can be complex is wrong.

## βιντεογραφία

* Mind Your Language: Thought, Metaphor and Imagination - World Science Festival
When Wigner's friend gets classical? / Κλασικοποίηση του πειράματος Wigner

## How Wigner's friend thought experiment becomes classical?

Wigner's friend thought experiment doesn't properly work with (huge collections of particles like) humans and rooms, because the created a wider entanglement connectome, something that we call a classical common reality. We have to replace Wigner and his friend with particles, thus now we have three particles, one is the experimental focus, and the others are Wigner's friend and Wigner. We then can create the infinite series of Wigner's friends, which acts classically, because huge systems of particles due to quantum decoherence entangle themselves in connectomes of common reality not designed in the ideal experiment. How many particles are required in order quantum decoherence creates a wider connectome of common reality? It depends on how well an experiment is designed. Even few particles in an extended Wigner's friend experiment, cannot remain for long unclassical (without quantum decoherence creating a common reality).
Υπερφυσικό / Supernatural

Οτιδήποτε δεν βασίζεται σε φυσικούς νόμους (ασθενική ιδέα διότι τα πάντα έχουν κάποια θεμελίωση, η οποία αν ήταν τελείως χαοτική, θα τα διέλυε ακαριαία ή δεν θα τους επέτρεπε να υπάρχουν).

Το υπερφυσικό στην ουσία δεν είναι αυτό που δεν έχει θεμελίωση της υποστατότητας, αλλά είναι αυτό που έχει θεμελίωση της υποστατότητας συμβατή με την ανθρώπινη δεισιδαιμονία βασισμένη σε φόβους και ανάγκες μα όχι την επιστήμη.

## Actually supernaturalists (anti-physicalists) are postontological proceduralists/mechanists

Supernaturalists are meta-ontological proceduralists/mechanists. They don't reject procedures/mechanisms, but they are referring after the ontological foundations. Scientific physicalists try to define ontology itself in a procedural/mechanistic manner (see: David Deutsch).

## Atheism vs scientific physicalism vs philosophical physicalism

Atheism (athéisme) is a weak metaphysical worldview because it doesn't include specific metaphysical answers. 'Scientific physicalism' (physicalisme scientifique) is stronger because it is based on the foundations of substantiality (David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, Max Tegmark, etc.), information theory, physics, neuroscience, chemical [origin] abiogenesis of life, etc. 'Philosophical physicalism' (physicalisme philosophique; common physicalism) provides answers during debates, but it doesn't rigorously analyze the foundations of substantiality.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Supernatural beliefs include postontological procedures/mechanisms. Supernatural beliefs don't reject the existence of procedures. They simply do not describe the foundations of substantiality. Thus supernaturalism is a weaker view from scientific physicalism, because it doesn't elaborate something better about the foundations of substantiality. David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, Max Tegmark and many others work on the foundations of substantiality. Science doesn't provide immediate answers. It gradually evolves.
Block universe / Σύμπαν στατικού τετραδιάστατου χωροχρόνου

## Commenting on: Do the Past and Future Exist? - PBS Space Time - YouTube

We have to select a central observer. The closer spatiotemporally things are to her, the closer to her location and present, the more entangled they are to her wavefunction = common ontological description of existence via a local connectome. Thus according to quantum mechanics, the simplistic block universe is wrong. Everettian = manyworlded alternative realities do exist. Still the universe is mechanistic. Mechanism is the term for any complex determinism. The Everettian mechanism is a richer determinism. The further we are in space and time from a central arbitrary observational origin; the more alternative microstates we introduce; things can exist in a range of alternatives if we cannot observe them well enough. the "homekill paradox" (an impossible superluminal thought experiment): The further spatiotemporally one deviates from his/her home, if the distance is Hubble-volume multiples, the less probable it becomes he/she will find home when he/she returns.
The impossibility of the soul

## text 1

I am a physicalist though. Brainless thinking is impossible. See MIT neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher on YouTube. Also according to the topological (see: topology) and "information theory" representation of the idealized brain, with nodes and connections, the soul is impossible because it's pointwise (being a pure idea) without a connectome. Brains require memories (many memories) and procedural modes / operating modes (many operating modes; for emotion, logic, etc. No mental ability is self-evident; because brain lesions in different areas cause the corresponding inabilities; see: Robert Sapolsky on YouTube and his books. Neuroscience has neuroimaging data on that. see: World Science Festival on neuroscience; Neuroscience News magazine, The Royal Institution - Consciousness - YouTube). The brain necessarily requires a volume (points without a connectome [see: artificial neural networks] have no characteristics and express no differentiation), and thought requires time to be expressed. Thus spacetime is more fundamental than brains. Personhood/προσωποσύνη (the state of being a self-aware thinker; a person) is the result of a personhood-yielding computer (biological, in the future program based; the material doesn't matter). Brains are personhood-yielding computers; computers able to create the conditions for personhood (basic self-awareness, memories,  emotions, etc; see: Brodmann areas [there is no single design for a personhood-yielding computer = brain, but the human brain is a model we know well]). Personhood isn't related to cosmogony, see: Alan Guth, Brian Greene, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc. / I support the American Atheists. I am a physicalist = φύσις + -ιστής = φυσιστής (physicalism = φυσισμός; metaphysical naturalism is related) / Christianity is a schism / a differentiation from Judaism. Please promote American fundamental science = basic research on rigorous science.
About Hilary Putnam

## There is no rigorous and generic definition of each functional category, neither do they remain static

rigorous: based on axiomatics or preferably based on causally interconnected ontoaxiomatics

Hilary Putnam gave some handy definitions.

Functionality isn't axiomatically definable (that is a foundational causality problem, not due to human inability), neither a sole theory of functionality exists.

### ironically stated:

Philosophy being a clown has the role of pleasing us. It doesn't have to be fundamental. Could it possibly be though?

## The fundamental limitations of functional categories (functionality categorisation)

```
Why artificial neural networks,
biological brains
and other thinking machines
make mistakes?

```

Of course some mistakes result from obvious data omissions during the formation of the informational processor,

but some miscalculations are of fundamental causation;

because functional categories cannot be fully defined (not due to human inability but due to fundamental limitations).
Why we cannot intactly get teleported/quantumly tunnel through heavy walls?

Definitions by Oxford Languages

freedom
/ˈfriːdəm/
noun

1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
comment of mine: Does that "one"/personality magically pre-exist; or is she a procedural outcome?

2. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
comment of mine: ...to work within the limits of the property of the slave owner; to select between finite universities; to physically create with your procedurally working brain new subfields of study limited by your physical intelligence, which by no means is infinite (see: unimaginable stories... Extremely difficult and nonsensical? Impossible to be expressed even as wrong views? Containing unknown unknowns? With impossible neural network statistical characteristic of data analysis? = Actually that's important. Specific brains have specific patterns, thus a specific brain unable to solve difficult mathematics or compose difficult melodies will never imagine a correct huge mathematical formula or a well composed huge musical piece. These ideas are totally impossible for some minds. Other minds have other impossible/prohibitory ideorealms/realms of ideas.)

Prohibitory probabilities are extremely important in physics. Theoretically atoms could tunnel barriers of specific ranges; but why humans don't walk through walls? These barriers are puny (for longer distance tunnelling the probabilities are so low that the universe would have to cycle its lifespan way more than googolplex times; especially if we wanted the whole human to tunnel unharmed. But actually my elaboration is wrong. It is impossible (not improbable) for an unharmed human to tunnel a wall, because his/her molecules have an ambiguity. Humans are not comprised of maximally entangled particles. We cannot intactly walk through walls, because that would cause the wave function ambiguities to slightly differentiate (we don't speak about a single entanglement but about too many weak partial entanglements; but weak partial entanglements are extremely affected by quantum decoherence [different spatiotemporal regions have different characteristics; the universe isn't perfectly homogeneous and isotropic particularly in small orders of magnitude; actually noise anti-bias deems necessary a percentage of noise deviation in all the orders of magnitude]. That would kill any living creature. The fundamental thing is that we cannot have simultaneous teleportaton of the particles of an object which isn't self-entangled or innately oscillating periodically as a whole at the quantum level; the teleportation would build up the deviations in a lethal manner).

will (sense 2.1)
the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action.

• control deliberately exerted to do something or to restrain one's own impulses.

• a deliberate or fixed desire or intention.

• the thing that one desires or ordains.
Nongeneral ontological Turing machines / μη γενικές οντολογικές μηχανές Τούρινγκ

υποστατικές μηχανές Turing / substantiality Turing machines

## The cosmos is a non-generic Turing machine (category: nongeneral ontological Turing machines)

A "nongeneral ontological Turing machine" includes in tandem it's own ontological definition and ontological operational mechanisms. Ontological here means exhibited in a universe-like world (not necessarily a universe mathematically related to ours), because substantiality requires the mathematical (or allomathematics with alternative axiomatics) formulas to be causally linked and acting as a wide system; otherwise we have yet unsubstantial mathematical formulas that don't belong in a wider causal connectome (or the formula might be a substantiality of a universe-like world we don't yet know).

Why it isn't (in most cases) a general Turing machine? It's not used in science [it doesn't have to calculate everything and/or be handy] (science might describe it via scientists but it doesn't cause it; its mathematical correctness causes it alone).

Its job is to exist; to be substantial.

## comment 1:

Other options: a. magic exists... but having no specific ontological definition and characteristics it cannot ascribe identities and impart substantialities, b. the cosmos isn't a non-generic Turing machine, but a machine with unstable function not compatible with Turing's definition, being totally uncausal thus impossible.
Κοσμογονία απ' το τίποτα / cosmogony from nothing

## Galen Strawson and personogony / personal cosmogony from the self-caused first in existence person

Galen Strawson doesn't elaborate on the impossibility of the self-caused cosmogonic personhood

Galen Strawson doesn't elaborate on the impossibility of the self-caused cosmogonic personhood ex precosmic nihilo (here the damage done by Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox is obvious [cosmogony from ontoaxiomatics/allomathematical causal connectome logically possible to the degree of existence VERSUS cosmogony from the permanently inexistent nonstate decayable nothing = zero spacetime without potentiality in itself and its nonharmony/unmathematicality])

(Stephen Hawking confused 1. cosmogony from nothing with 2. cosmogony without a beginning = this is correct; the Big Bang is a causal neck/causality neck, still correlated to superluminally expanding spacetime which is nowadays afar from our observable universe, but each area in the universe is causally related to nearby areas [study: non-Penrosean cyclic cosmology [many exist, be closer to mainstream definitions of the Big Bang and of overlapping Hubble volumes]; study also: overlapping Hubble volumes ad infinitum].

We can excuse somewhat Stephen Hawking because "cosmogony from nothing" was an older phrase of his and "cosmogony without a beginning" was a more mature later idea. But the excuse is wrong because he didn't say it himself. He should have lived more [not for that phrase; others can correct the details; he should have lived more for his overall contribution to our particular ontoaxiomatics])

Galen Strawson: Even if the property of being causa sui is allowed to belong (unintelligibly) to God...

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

questions to be answered:

Is personhood self-caused ex non-universal nihilo?

Is personhood a mereological simple (a simple as defined in mereology)?

Is personhood a prerequisite for ontoaxiomatics?

(see my older texts)