Side stepping nonsense governments, OpenGov can it work?

[FirstAscent]

Your replies are not calming me. I think you need to get grounded in reality. Your responses are very fluffy. Cute philosophy and bitcoins are not going to help us out here.

Question: In two or three sentences, can you summarize the point I'm trying to make? Either I'm not doing a good job of it, or you're being obtuse, or you think my point is not relevant. You're free to state which it is, but in doing so, please answer if you are indeed able to summarize the point I'm trying to make, and if so, what is that point?

[punningclan]

Your replies are not calming me. I think you need to get grounded in reality. Your responses are very fluffy. Cute philosophy and bitcoins are not going to help us out here.

Question: In two or three sentences, can you summarize the point I'm trying to make? Either I'm not doing a good job of it, or you're being obtuse, or you think my point is not relevant. You're free to state which it is, but in doing so, please answer if you are indeed able to summarize the point I'm trying to make, and if so, what is that point?

I'm sorry can you point me to any point you've made other than to frame everything I am saying as fluffy or a failed argument (providing no evidence), Lisp is good, that you love mathematics and that you think the NAP can't protect nature without some central control because we are all so selfish?

I think edge theory might have to contend with fractal theory in a similar way as Four Color Theorem has to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem) since it's possible to have lines that don't end.

This is a forum about Bitcoin and this is a thread about Bitcoin and its forks and the social and political impact it/they can and will have it's not my fault you can't see that. Money touches everything in our daily lives if Bitcoin succeeds it will do the same minus the corrupt middlemen who in the end cause a great deal of the environmental destruction you are alluding to.

Gold is frequently used analogously with Bitcoin so why does the analogy "fall flat on its face" if both are a precious resources?

You also appear to have taken offense at my indication this is an infinite universe that came from nothing and at my intimation that that is a free lunch and have failed to address this presumably because it doesn't support whatever argument you're implying. Furthermore you don't seem to want to address why you think Math is not comparable in weight to the environmental point you might be making presumably for the same reason.

I wasn't suggesting that my comments would calm you I was telling you this would be more amiable if you calmed down. I think I'm probably being obtuse because you were being so inflammatory?

If you want I can make an attempt at ripping apart the psychology of exactly what you are trying to say in your 14 questions but again I would prefer to take them at face value.  

From your first question who's getting off with what easily?

What sort of reality do you want me to be in and exactly where have I been cute? (Other than this sentence duh.)

I must say I'm impressed if you find Quantum Theory, Big Bang Theory, Zeno, Cantor, Fractals and Multiverse Theory fluffy then I need to bow out of this discussion since I'm definitely out of my depth.

Perhaps we ought to end this here and return to the topic?

[FirstAscent]

You have spent a huge amount of time pretending to engage in a meaningful dialog, while saying essentially nothing. The usage of scientific terminology such as fractals, quantum theory, and referencing the Big Bang in random form does not make for a cogent answer. Please continue to read...

I'm sorry can you point me to any point you've made other than to frame everything I am saying as fluffy or a failed argument (providing no evidence), Lisp is good, that you love mathematics and that you think the NAP can't protect nature without some central control because we are all so selfish?

Just because I made a comment about Lisp because you brought it up and just because you made a comment about mathematics has nothing to do with the fact that you said the Universe is our free lunch. You still haven't answered how the Universe is our free lunch. Therefore, once again...

How is the Universe our free lunch?

I think edge theory might have to contend with fractal theory in a similar way as Four Color Theorem has to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem) since it's possible to have lines that don't end.

You've brought fractal theory up twice and again it has nothing to do with the statement you made about how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

This is a forum about Bitcoin and this is a thread about Bitcoin and its forks and the social and political impact it/they can and will have it's not my fault you can't see that. Money touches everything in our daily lives if Bitcoin succeeds it will do the same minus the corrupt middlemen who in the end cause a great deal of the environmental destruction you are alluding to.

Regardless of whether this is a forum about bitcoin and this thread is about Open Government, you made the statement that the Universe is our free lunch.

So, once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

Gold is frequently used analogously with Bitcoin so why does the analogy "fall flat on its face" if both are a precious resources?

If you think gold and bitcoin are analogous to a resource which undergoes destruction to use it, then you better start thinking. And besides, you said look up at the stars and said the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

You also appear to have taken offense at my indication this is an infinite universe that came from nothing and at my intimation that that is a free lunch and have failed to address this presumably because it doesn't support whatever argument you're implying. Furthermore you don't seem to want to address why you think Math is not comparable in weight to the environmental point you might be making presumably for the same reason.

I have taken offense because you have not backed up your claim that the Universe is our free lunch. As for mathematics, you dragged that into the thread out of the blue. It doesn't answer how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

I wasn't suggesting that my comments would calm you I was telling you this would be more amiable if you calmed down. I think I'm probably being obtuse because you were being so inflammatory?

Once again, you made the claim that the Universe is our free lunch, and after I have pointed out over and over again that you can't seem to back up your statement, but instead choose to sidestep it, you have the nerve to say I'm being inflammatory?

Once again, you said the Universe is our free lunch. Care to answer how?

If you want I can make an attempt at ripping apart the psychology of exactly what you are trying to say in your 14 questions but again I would prefer to take them at face value.  

I'm afraid you never took my 14 questions at face value. You did not answer them, and you did not use the information implicit in them in attempting to answer the following question posed to you: How is the Universe our free lunch?

What sort of reality do you want me to be in and exactly where have I been cute? (Other than this sentence duh.)

I didn't say you're cute. I said you seem to be spouting philosophy instead of answering my question. I want you to back up your claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

I must say I'm impressed if you find Quantum Theory, Big Bang Theory, Zeno, Cantor, Fractals and Multiverse Theory fluffy then I need to bow out of this discussion since I'm definitely out of my depth.

I never made any such claim. What I did do is accuse of you of loading up your response with those terms in a meaningless way and out of context to my question to you. By doing so, your answer is low on content and high on fluffiness.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

Perhaps we ought to end this here and return to the topic?

You've had the opportunity to end it a long time ago. Simply answer the following question:
In light of the information I provided to you in the form of 14 questions, how is the Universe our free lunch?

If you can't answer the question because you've realized your statement that the Universe is our free lunch is in fact a load of shit, then simply 'fess up, and continue with the original premise of this thread. Otherwise, answer the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this post and several times in other posts, in reference to your claim that the Universe is our free lunch.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this thread in response to the claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch is:

How is the Universe our free lunch? That makes it eleven. Care to answer that question? You asserted that the Universe is our free lunch. Answer how.

[punningclan]

You have spent a huge amount of time pretending to engage in a meaningful dialog, while saying essentially nothing. The usage of scientific terminology such as fractals, quantum theory, and referencing the Big Bang in random form does not make for a cogent answer. Please continue to read...

I'm sorry can you point me to any point you've made other than to frame everything I am saying as fluffy or a failed argument (providing no evidence), Lisp is good, that you love mathematics and that you think the NAP can't protect nature without some central control because we are all so selfish?

Just because I made a comment about Lisp because you brought it up and just because you made a comment about mathematics has nothing to do with the fact that you said the Universe is our free lunch. You still haven't answered how the Universe is our free lunch. Therefore, once again...

How is the Universe our free lunch?

I think edge theory might have to contend with fractal theory in a similar way as Four Color Theorem has to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem) since it's possible to have lines that don't end.

You've brought fractal theory up twice and again it has nothing to do with the statement you made about how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

This is a forum about Bitcoin and this is a thread about Bitcoin and its forks and the social and political impact it/they can and will have it's not my fault you can't see that. Money touches everything in our daily lives if Bitcoin succeeds it will do the same minus the corrupt middlemen who in the end cause a great deal of the environmental destruction you are alluding to.

Regardless of whether this is a forum about bitcoin and this thread is about Open Government, you made the statement that the Universe is our free lunch.

So, once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

Gold is frequently used analogously with Bitcoin so why does the analogy "fall flat on its face" if both are a precious resources?

If you think gold and bitcoin are analogous to a resource which undergoes destruction to use it, then you better start thinking. And besides, you said look up at the stars and said the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

You also appear to have taken offense at my indication this is an infinite universe that came from nothing and at my intimation that that is a free lunch and have failed to address this presumably because it doesn't support whatever argument you're implying. Furthermore you don't seem to want to address why you think Math is not comparable in weight to the environmental point you might be making presumably for the same reason.

I have taken offense because you have not backed up your claim that the Universe is our free lunch. As for mathematics, you dragged that into the thread out of the blue. It doesn't answer how the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

I wasn't suggesting that my comments would calm you I was telling you this would be more amiable if you calmed down. I think I'm probably being obtuse because you were being so inflammatory?

Once again, you made the claim that the Universe is our free lunch, and after I have pointed out over and over again that you can't seem to back up your statement, but instead choose to sidestep it, you have the nerve to say I'm being inflammatory?

Once again, you said the Universe is our free lunch. Care to answer how?

If you want I can make an attempt at ripping apart the psychology of exactly what you are trying to say in your 14 questions but again I would prefer to take them at face value.  

I'm afraid you never took my 14 questions at face value. You did not answer them, and you did not use the information implicit in them in attempting to answer the following question posed to you: How is the Universe our free lunch?

What sort of reality do you want me to be in and exactly where have I been cute? (Other than this sentence duh.)

I didn't say you're cute. I said you seem to be spouting philosophy instead of answering my question. I want you to back up your claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

I must say I'm impressed if you find Quantum Theory, Big Bang Theory, Zeno, Cantor, Fractals and Multiverse Theory fluffy then I need to bow out of this discussion since I'm definitely out of my depth.

I never made any such claim. What I did do is accuse of you of loading up your response with those terms in a meaningless way and out of context to my question to you. By doing so, your answer is low on content and high on fluffiness.

Once again, how is the Universe our free lunch?

Perhaps we ought to end this here and return to the topic?

You've had the opportunity to end it a long time ago. Simply answer the following question:
In light of the information I provided to you in the form of 14 questions, how is the Universe our free lunch?

If you can't answer the question because you've realized your statement that the Universe is our free lunch is in fact a load of shit, then simply 'fess up, and continue with the original premise of this thread. Otherwise, answer the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this post and several times in other posts, in reference to your claim that the Universe is our free lunch.

Oh, and in case you missed it, the question that has now been posed to you ten times in this thread in response to the claim you made that the Universe is our free lunch is:

How is the Universe our free lunch? That makes it eleven. Care to answer that question? You asserted that the Universe is our free lunch. Answer how.

LOL!!!

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

dEdT~h/2pi

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch. Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

[FirstAscent]

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

No, I didn't miss that. But it is not relevant. Just because something came into being and exists does not mean it is accessible. Why do you keep saying stuff that is irrelevant?

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

It's not difficult to understand. Merely irrelevant to our discussion.

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch.

Umm, no. Lunches need to be in your hand to use. The 500 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in our own galaxy are not in our hand. Thus, no lunch, let alone a free lunch.

Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

How can I spin it any other way? I just did, and in a way that is actually relevant.

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments, Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

Sorry, but I think you need to learn more about resources and how markets work with regard to them. Bitcoins and gold are not sufficient examples to use as models.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

The only failure here is your subversion of Edge Effects. If you want to play it your way, then let's talk ratios just to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of using fractals to analyze the utility of the Edge Effects theory. Do you understand what I mean when I mention ratios? Let me spell it out for you: In your insistence on the useless notion of discussing fractals with regard to Edge Effects, revisit my checkerboard, and using your fractal idea, determine the ratio of edge lengths regardless of fractal depth between the two scenarios I laid out for you. 64 sections vs. 2 sections.

Hello?!? Do you get it now? All of your going on about fractals doesn't change a thing. I think you just had your fractal ideas and the idea of infinite coastlines and your ass handed back to you. Either admit defeat on the applicability of fractals to Edge Effects or expect to continue the discussion until you are defeated. You will not win this one, and mathematics will demonstrate why.

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Once again, the Big Bang and it's result does not imply a free lunch unless that lunch is accessible to us at zero cost.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

You're the one who made a statement saying the Universe is our free lunch. It's not wrong to call you out on it, and point out that flinging mathematical terms and concepts about cosmology do not constitute an answer.

Oh, and about the fractals: I suspect you don't understand yet. But I will explain it to you if that is required.

Feel free to start a new thread. You obviously need to have your brain rewired and I'll be happy to oblige.

[punningclan]

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

No, I didn't miss that. But it is not relevant. Just because something came into being and exists does not mean it is accessible. Why do you keep saying stuff that is irrelevant?

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

It's not difficult to understand. Merely irrelevant to our discussion.

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch.

Umm, no. Lunches need to be in your hand to use. The 500 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in our own galaxy are not in our hand. Thus, no lunch, let alone a free lunch.

Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

How can I spin it any other way? I just did, and in a way that is actually relevant.

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments, Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

Sorry, but I think you need to learn more about resources and how markets work with regard to them. Bitcoins and gold are not sufficient examples to use as models.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

The only failure here is your subversion of Edge Effects. If you want to play it your way, then let's talk ratios just to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of using fractals to analyze the utility of the Edge Effects theory. Do you understand what I mean when I mention ratios? Let me spell it out for you: In your insistence on the useless notion of discussing fractals with regard to Edge Effects, revisit my checkerboard, and using your fractal idea, determine the ratio of edge lengths regardless of fractal depth between the two scenarios I laid out for you. 64 sections vs. 2 sections.

Hello?!? Do you get it now? All of your going on about fractals doesn't change a thing. I think you just had your fractal ideas and the idea of infinite coastlines and your ass handed back to you. Either admit defeat on the applicability of fractals to Edge Effects or expect to continue the discussion until you are defeated. You will not win this one, and mathematics will demonstrate why.

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Once again, the Big Bang and it's result does not imply a free lunch unless that lunch is accessible to us at zero cost.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

You're the one who made a statement saying the Universe is our free lunch. It's not wrong to call you out on it, and point out that flinging mathematical terms and concepts about cosmology do not constitute an answer.

Oh, and about the fractals: I suspect you don't understand yet. But I will explain it to you if that is required.

Feel free to start a new thread. You obviously need to have your brain rewired and I'll be happy to oblige.

Rather like you threw in the math relating to Edge Theory?

How much did it cost to the first life on this planet to come into existence. How much did the first human who discovered how to control fire charge us all?

Who paid for Panspermia?

One thing I can say for certain is that you've lost the right to say you're not being inflammatory.

Please see the pdf attached to the first message.

[FirstAscent]

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

No, I didn't miss that. But it is not relevant. Just because something came into being and exists does not mean it is accessible. Why do you keep saying stuff that is irrelevant?

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

It's not difficult to understand. Merely irrelevant to our discussion.

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch.

Umm, no. Lunches need to be in your hand to use. The 500 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in our own galaxy are not in our hand. Thus, no lunch, let alone a free lunch.

Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

How can I spin it any other way? I just did, and in a way that is actually relevant.

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments, Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

Sorry, but I think you need to learn more about resources and how markets work with regard to them. Bitcoins and gold are not sufficient examples to use as models.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

The only failure here is your subversion of Edge Effects. If you want to play it your way, then let's talk ratios just to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of using fractals to analyze the utility of the Edge Effects theory. Do you understand what I mean when I mention ratios? Let me spell it out for you: In your insistence on the useless notion of discussing fractals with regard to Edge Effects, revisit my checkerboard, and using your fractal idea, determine the ratio of edge lengths regardless of fractal depth between the two scenarios I laid out for you. 64 sections vs. 2 sections.

Hello?!? Do you get it now? All of your going on about fractals doesn't change a thing. I think you just had your fractal ideas and the idea of infinite coastlines and your ass handed back to you. Either admit defeat on the applicability of fractals to Edge Effects or expect to continue the discussion until you are defeated. You will not win this one, and mathematics will demonstrate why.

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Once again, the Big Bang and it's result does not imply a free lunch unless that lunch is accessible to us at zero cost.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

You're the one who made a statement saying the Universe is our free lunch. It's not wrong to call you out on it, and point out that flinging mathematical terms and concepts about cosmology do not constitute an answer.

Oh, and about the fractals: I suspect you don't understand yet. But I will explain it to you if that is required.

Feel free to start a new thread. You obviously need to have your brain rewired and I'll be happy to oblige.

Rather like you threw in the math relating to Edge Theory?

How much did it cost to the first life on this planet to come into existence. How much did the first human who discovered how to control fire charge us all?

Who paid for Panspermia?

One thing I can say for certain is that you've lost the right to say you're not being inflammatory.

Please see the pdf attached to the first message.

I will now leave this thread, as I think you like to fling about nonsense instead of discuss concrete workable theories.

[punningclan]

Did you miss :

"..The universe (to say nothing of the multiverse) is the ultimate free lunch since it itself, from Big Bang theory, is something out of nothing. From Quantum theory there is no such thing as nothing.."

No, I didn't miss that. But it is not relevant. Just because something came into being and exists does not mean it is accessible. Why do you keep saying stuff that is irrelevant?

Why is it difficult to understand this statement? Do you want me to write the formulas?

It's not difficult to understand. Merely irrelevant to our discussion.

from the Uncertainty Principle for a start.

Should I repeat that 11 times? There was no Universe then there was a Universe ergo Free Lunch.

Umm, no. Lunches need to be in your hand to use. The 500 billion galaxies and 100 billion stars in our own galaxy are not in our hand. Thus, no lunch, let alone a free lunch.

Perhaps I should have said look at the Universe, but up seemed more appropriate for some reason. One more time, the multiverse has always been here, we came after and there is no one we needed to pay to exist, how can you spin that any other way?

How can I spin it any other way? I just did, and in a way that is actually relevant.

Try telling some of the folk who've lost their wallets that Bitcoin can't be destroyed. Presumably, if in a sort of reverse Alchemy or if some idiot decided to transmute it or the RHIC used huge amounts of it in its experiments, Gold was destroyed its value would increase, the same can be said of any resource, it's a very simple analogy, maybe not a perfect fit but nevertheless an analogy.

Sorry, but I think you need to learn more about resources and how markets work with regard to them. Bitcoins and gold are not sufficient examples to use as models.

My fractal quote is a counter point to your link about Edge theory since Edge Theory seems to fail to address infinite distances if I'm not mistaken. For example if you try to measure the length of the UK in one meter increments it's one length then if you do the same at one cm it's another length and in fact the closer you get the longer the distance Ad Infinitum. Did you miss the link between Four Color Theory and the link you posted?

The only failure here is your subversion of Edge Effects. If you want to play it your way, then let's talk ratios just to demonstrate the futility and stupidity of using fractals to analyze the utility of the Edge Effects theory. Do you understand what I mean when I mention ratios? Let me spell it out for you: In your insistence on the useless notion of discussing fractals with regard to Edge Effects, revisit my checkerboard, and using your fractal idea, determine the ratio of edge lengths regardless of fractal depth between the two scenarios I laid out for you. 64 sections vs. 2 sections.

Hello?!? Do you get it now? All of your going on about fractals doesn't change a thing. I think you just had your fractal ideas and the idea of infinite coastlines and your ass handed back to you. Either admit defeat on the applicability of fractals to Edge Effects or expect to continue the discussion until you are defeated. You will not win this one, and mathematics will demonstrate why.

It's likely that prior to the Big Bang (if that actually is what happened) the Quantum froth could be considered as not nothing (uncertainty) but that just becomes a recursive argument that gets us nowhere, similar to the way this thread is heading sadly.

Once again, the Big Bang and it's result does not imply a free lunch unless that lunch is accessible to us at zero cost.

Why do you think the Universe is not from nothing and qualify your position on Mathematics (but perhaps for the sake of the thread you should PM me or we both risk the troll moniker?) unless anyone else is interested?

You're the one who made a statement saying the Universe is our free lunch. It's not wrong to call you out on it, and point out that flinging mathematical terms and concepts about cosmology do not constitute an answer.

Oh, and about the fractals: I suspect you don't understand yet. But I will explain it to you if that is required.

Feel free to start a new thread. You obviously need to have your brain rewired and I'll be happy to oblige.

Rather like you threw in the math relating to Edge Theory?

How much did it cost to the first life on this planet to come into existence. How much did the first human who discovered how to control fire charge us all?

Who paid for Panspermia?

One thing I can say for certain is that you've lost the right to say you're not being inflammatory.

Please see the pdf attached to the first message.

I will now leave this thread, as I think you like to fling about nonsense instead of discuss concrete workable theories.

http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-04/seminarios/EJP_Stenger-bigbang_90.pdf