Can Prediction Be Scientifically Defined Without Veering Into Prophecy?

I am not sure if there is a scientific process here that can define prediction appropriately, and not loose itself to some refined processes called prophecy?

So I wanted to share some thoughts here.

In looking at Ramanujan, his story is a interesting one, where the mathematical ideas seem to have been formulated in a state much removed from his conscious one?

The taxi cab number would ring itself amazing, when Ramanujan came up with the number of the cab. This is a abbreviated version, so having said this, the ideas of string theory (resonance KK Tower and windings) made there way into my head, and the questions of a viable process for prediction?

Partitions- A Play on Ramanujan

What woud have been a suitable model for using this prediction, but to described a event in Mendeelev's table, and to have presented new forms of matter, where there previously was a space between two elements?

Does this sound like a bad idea

Pi and What Baez Thought as Fool's Gold?

I mean for sure how would we satisfy the ability of any empirical question from a theoretical standpoint? It must reveal real results experimentally for it to have been a sound venture.


Mar 7, 2004 5:39 am

If you look at Pascals triangle, there is used similar addition to define the probabilties of a course of events. In Baez's comments, he talks about fools Gold as the Fibocconni series of numbers. Using marble drops to help visualize these pathways, the proof of Stefan Boltzmann in the binomal series, speaks to the chaos generated from considering such probabilties.

To me the number generations are not fools Gold, in considering the spiral of life, but to this alone, there other considerations and the marble drop definitiely helps to define pathways.

My links to the quote at the very top of the page is about prediction.

An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.
Ramanujan

Numbers define a resonance capability (part of Baez's words in caution). The pythagoreans believed in numbers as well.


So we had to look for some kind of consistency and how would we explain this geometrically?

www.atributetohinduism.com/quotes321_340.htm[/URL]

Since the theme "predictions" is allowed here, I don't see any reason why not setting the following here:
www.siloam.net/jenkins/5thsun2.html
www.siloam.net/jenkins/ambilac.html
www.siloam.net/jenkins/index2.html#bottom
http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/lostsecrets
After all, I WAS ASKED TO GIVE PREDICTIONS by some members of the forum.

While we encounter many times of prophecy throughout our life times, it is important to me to distill how such processes might have been of benefit for theoretical developement.

This required me to look at what strings are doing and look for a consistent geometrical definition(?) that has been presented to us from Einstein. This consistency is important, and where we leave off for Einstein, we move forward for the ideas of the graviton. Kaluza and Klein resurgence is important here?

So to me, such systems like the I ching, or any other system that allows for a certain number of probability functions, held a important question in my mind as to how such pattern might have issue from the beginning.

So Ramanujan becomes very important for a number of reasons that would seem clear in this discritption, not just from the very ideas of what might unfold, but how? What imprtance do such moduli functions reveal, that he might have discribed for a us a method and determination of how he arrived at the taxi cab number?

So for me such explanation that might have spoken about possible mathematical discriptions like those that might issue from pascal's triangle, reveal such probability functions evident to me in the marble drop? The Binominial series of expressions?

So I looked to strings and ask okay, how would such realizations from paradigm acceptance, ask us to look to the future, and predict. If this is a sound system prediction will we have verified the existence of this model for acceptance?

You must test the system.

Sol2: you're a wise guy who don't eliminate the ancient things like litter and yet keep on the scientific objective approach. Even the way you write the things gives the clue of your dicotomic nature. Keep on doing this though you'll find some minds are as dense as walls and not even neutrins could pass through them.