Here is some more of my work: 0→1→2→complexity It captures an intuitive story: a lack of distinction, the emergence of unity, the appearance of difference, and then the growth of relationships and patterns. That kind of simplicity is often what makes ideas worth investigating. Many powerful mathematical ideas begin with a pattern that feels fundamental before the formal machinery is developed. At the same time, its appeal and its scientific status are different things. Right now, 0!=1 in the way you are using it is best viewed as a conceptual framework or metaphorical organizing principle, not a demonstrated physical law. The next step, if one wanted to develop it, would be to see whether it can generate precise mathematics or predictions. But as a piece of conceptual thinking, yes—the focus on unity as an organizing principle is a genuinely interesting question. It asks something very fundamental: Why does reality contain coherent structures at all? That question has been at the heart of mathematics and physics for a long time. It could help in determining when polarities are possible Yes, that is one of the more interesting ways to frame it. If your idea were developed mathematically, it could be viewed as asking: Under what conditions can a system move from a unified state into a state with distinguishable opposites or polarities? In existing science, this question appears in several forms: Symmetry breaking: A system may begin with many equivalent possibilities, then settle into a state where distinctions appear. For example, a magnet can have a preferred direction even though the underlying laws are symmetric. Phase transitions: A system can change from one type of organization to another when conditions cross a threshold. Bifurcations in dynamical systems: A small change in conditions can cause a system to split into different possible behaviors. A mathematical version of your question might be: When does a unified state become unstable and allow two or more distinct states? The "polarity" would not necessarily mean good/bad or opposite forces in a philosophical sense. It could simply mean two distinguishable states that are related by a rule. For example: 1→(+1,−1) could represent the emergence of a pair of complementary possibilities. The challenge would be defining what triggers that transition: an energy threshold? a symmetry condition? an information constraint? a mathematical instability? That is actually where your focus on 1 becomes useful. Rather than starting with the opposites, you are asking about the origin of the conditions that allow opposites to exist at all. A rigorous version of the idea would need to specify a mathematical system where: a unified state exists, a polarity can emerge, the transition point can be calculated. That would put it in conversation with existing work on symmetry, phase transitions, and emergent structures. Could you simplify this for my small human mind Absolutely. The simple version is: You are asking: How does one thing become two things? Imagine a perfectly calm, undivided situation. There is no difference, no "this side" and "that side." Then something changes, and a difference appears: 1→+1 and −1 Now there is a relationship. There is a "push" and a "pull," a direction, a pattern. A simple example: A perfectly balanced pencil standing on its tip has no chosen direction. A tiny disturbance happens. It falls one way or the other. A difference appears. The important part is not the two directions themselves. It is the moment when a difference becomes possible. Your idea with 0!=1 seems to be asking: Is there a basic mathematical rule that explains how a state of pure possibility becomes a real, organized state? Then the next question is: Once a "one" exists, when and why can it split into a "two"? That split is where polarity appears. In very simple terms: potential→unity→polarity→complexity You are not really asking about numbers. You are asking about the birth of differences and relationships. That is a big question. It is the kind of question that sits underneath ideas like symmetry breaking, the formation of structures in the universe, and how complexity arises. Your intuition is trying to find the "first step" where the universe goes from one possible state into many possible states. Here is the short version of what you have, without dressing it up.You are drawing a ladder:0 — no distinction. Nothing to count, no “this” versus “that.” 1 — a whole. One situation that can stand as itself. 2 — a split. Two related sides: +1+1+1 and −1-1-1 , here and there, this way and that way. complexity — many relations among those distinctions.That is a story about how difference appears, not a formula that already predicts anything.Physics already has names for the middle step, the jump from 1 to 2:A pencil balanced on its tip is a kind of 1: no chosen direction. A tiny shove and it falls left or right: 2. That is the everyday picture of symmetry breaking. A magnet, a cooled metal, a particle that picks a vacuum: same pattern. One balanced possibility becomes two (or many) actual sides.Your “ones” from the last message fit the 1. Each complete moment is a whole. Polarity is what happens when a whole can support two opposite markings that still belong to the same rule ((n) and −n-n-n , or a turn and its reverse).What this is not yet:It is not a new law. 0→1→20\to 1\to 20\to 1\to 2 does not tell you when the pencil falls or what the two sides are. 0≠10\neq 10\neq 1 as a slogan is not the same as the factorial fact 0!=10!=10!=1 . Those are different uses of the symbols. Time being “measured in ones” does not follow automatically from this ladder. You can tell the same story with no clocks at all. The useful question hiding in it is only this:When is a single whole unstable enough that a pair can appear?Until you name the system (a number, a field, a magnet, a Now) and the trigger (energy, noise, a rule that forbids staying balanced), it stays a map of ideas: emptiness, unity, opposition, tangle.That map is old and respectable. It is how people first notice symmetry breaking and complexity. It becomes science when the arrows get equations and a number you can check. Until then it is a clean sketch of the birth of difference — which is exactly the interesting part.
-
Any interesting things in berkeley talk concerning free speech Thought for 9s The most recent flashpoint is a virtual talk UC Berkeley’s Students for Justice in Palestine hosted on the evening of October 7, 2026, titled “Al-Aqsa Flood Anniversary Talks.” Speaker Mohamed Abdou (author of Islam and Anarchism, formerly at Columbia, and on a virtual “Death to the Akademy” tour) spoke to roughly 25 people.Abdou described the third anniversary of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack—which the group itself calls Operation Al-Aqsa Flood—as “one of the most glorious days.” He linked U.S. settlement and Indigenous history to the Palestinian cause, argued students are complicit by attending universities built on “stolen land,” and said: “There is no free Palestine until a free Turtle Island. That means destroying it.” He has previously written that he was “with the muqawamah (the resistance) be it Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad but up to a point.” Coverage and criticism also cite earlier remarks attributed to him telling students to “be proud of your hate for America.”Jewish student groups and organizations including the Jewish Student Union, AMCHA Initiative, and Combat Antisemitism Movement called the framing of the attack immoral or dangerous and asked the campus to deny him a platform. AMCHA explicitly said the event involved free speech, which it supports, while still flagging the rhetoric. UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof replied that the First Amendment protects the expression, while speech that constitutes harassment or discrimination on a protected category is not protected.That same day, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky gave his annual Supreme Court talk at the Berkeley City Club. It included discussion of his recent book with UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman, Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times, which addresses protest rules, disruption, and government pressure on faculty speech after the Gaza war. In an August 2026 message to the law school, Chemerinsky restated an all-comers policy for student groups, time-place-manner limits, and the view that even protected speech can trigger institutional duties if it creates a hostile environment, while disruption of events will not be tolerated.
-
-
A veteran is a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service and was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.Military DefinitionService: Full-time duty in a branch of the Armed Forces (such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard).Discharge: Separation from service under honorable conditions, meaning it was not a dishonorable discharge.Combat: Combat experience is not required to be a veteran; anyone who completed their required service time is included.Reserves and National Guard: Members of these branches qualify if they were called to federal active duty by presidential order.General DefinitionThe word also means a person who has long experience or a lot of skill in a specific job, field, or activity (such as a "political veteran").
-
Gov. Gavin Newsom targets antisemitism in California schools with new law In signing the law, Newsom rebuffed objections from the state's main teachers union and others. Gavin Newsom sits with students in elementary school classroom. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure aiming to clamp down on antisemitism in schools on Tuesday. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP By Eric He 10/07/2025 04:06 PM EDT Updated: 10/07/2025 08:08 PM EDT Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that aims to clamp down on antisemitism in schools, shrugging off objections by a powerful teachers union and others that it will restrict what teachers can say about Israel’s war in Gaza and other hot button topics. The bill, AB 715, cleared both chambers of the Legislature unanimously in votes that belied the tensions leading up to its passage in the final hours of legislative session earlier this month. During a last-minute hearing to debate the bill, the chair of an Assembly committee vented he was being forced to “choose between fighting antisemitism and supporting a bad policy bill that is opposed by every single education advocacy organization.” 00:00 02:00 Read More Newsom rejected such concerns and was unswayed by opposition from the California Teachers Association, a major force in state politics. He sided instead with the Jewish Legislative Caucus and leading Jewish organizations such as Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, which had made the measure their only legislative priority for the year. In pushing for the bill, the groups cited a surge in antisemitic incidents in California and members recounted their own experiences, particularly amid the turmoil in the Middle East following Hamas’ attack on Israel two years ago. Tuesday marked the second anniversary of the attack. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: our schools must be places of learning, not hate,” Newsom said in a statement. Much of the requirements in the law, which takes effect on January 1, are open to interpretation. Teachers must be “factually accurate” in lessons and adhere to unspecified “standards of professional responsibility,” while avoiding “advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship.” It also creates an Office of Civil Rights within a state agency, which will include an “antisemitism prevention coordinator” to consult with school districts and advise lawmakers on preventing antisemitism in schools. Newsom on Tuesday also signed SB 48, a companion bill that creates four additional coordinator positions meant to guard against discrimination based on someone’s religious beliefs, race and ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. The coordinator positions were part of a late deal the Jewish caucus made with other diversity caucuses, whose members objected to a bill focusing only on antisemitism. The two measures were contingent on the other passing. Despite that agreement, education groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other groups still urged Newsom to veto the bill. The ACLU, in a letter to the governor, claimed the measure contains “vague and overbroad provisions” that will restrict curriculum that is inclusive and historically relevant, create a chilling effect on students and teachers and invite lawsuits. The Council on American-Islamic Relations blasted the bill in a letter to Newsom as “especially harmful to the mental and emotional well-being of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim youth,” saying AB 715 rendered their stories “invisible and even punishable, deepening feelings of isolation and alienation at a time when they most need affirmation and inclusion.” In a public message to the legislature explaining his decision to sign the law, Newsom called for follow-up legislation next year to address those concerns, noting that “representatives from the entire education ecosystem ... expressed deep commitment to the goals of the bill, along with urgent concerns about unintended consequences.” “Public schools play a foundational role in our democracy, and we must continue to make our schools safe learning environments for all students while fostering critical thinking skills in the context of challenging conversations,” Newsom said. David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, highlighted Newsom’s comments on unintended consequences, calling them “significant.” “At a time when too many are seeking to attack academic freedom and weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so,” Goldberg said. Democratic Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis, introduced the antisemitism measure in July after an earlier piece of legislation, which would have placed tight guardrails on curriculum for ethnic studies classes, was knocked down by the teachers union and other education groups. To drum up needed support for AB 715, Zbur and Addis agreed to major amendments during the last week of the legislative session, including the removal of language on what constitutes an “antisemitic learning environment.” David Bocarsly, executive director of JPAC, called the signing a “historic day for California’s Jewish community and for every child who has ever felt unsafe, unseen, or unwelcome at school.” “By signing AB 715, Governor Newsom has sent a clear and powerful message: antisemitism, like all forms of hate, has no place in our public schools, period,” Bocarsly said. “This law is more than policy – it is a promise that Jewish children, their families, and all students, deserve a great public education and classrooms free from hate and discrimination.” Watch: The Conversation Play Video1:40 Kevin O'Leary: US stake in Intel is 'waste of taxpayer dollars' Filed Under: California
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment