Europe's Big Three are Detached from Efficient Economic Realty on Ukraine Conflict

 Europe’s big three nations militarily; France, Germany and Britain are completely spaced on the Ukraine war and seek to drag it out. As regards the U.S. they are like a pack of dog’s President Trump was hired to walk (by Joe Biden) that want to go their own way and chase a rabbit for lunch. They have no idea about the wrongness of their course to head over a cliff like a pack of lemming-schnauzers

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r3v5mmyp8o

They still have a fiction for themselves that Russia might attack Europe; they don’t remember that Russia vis the Soviet Union gave back half of Europe to the free world and sought peace. Russia simply wants it’s own security from N.A.T.O. expansion and to share the Ukraine it has usually owned before the Clinton era theft during a time of confusion and uncertainty for Russians.

Protracting the war is costly for everyone and the European leadership should be corrected in some way, if that is possible. Meanwhile President Trump should take the U.S. out of the war as he commendably has sought to accomplish, leaving peace in his wake.

Defining Truth

 Truth is a confirmation of the existence of something, or some condition or state of affairs. Quine's Disquotation theory of truth is an example of that. Things exist before reference to them generally. If one says that a exists and it does, then the statement that a exists is true. Everything that exists in the Universe has the potential for being mentioned in some statement about it. Confirming the truth, or dead on accuracy of a statement about something, as factual, is a truth or true statement. God is the only possible Truth-in-himself- One who requires no conference of truth upon Him via some sort of proposition as a state of affairs. In fact that is something of a paradox that God shares, apparently, with the mechanics or mechanism of gravity, possible dimensions below the Planck length in size, dark energy and dark matter; that is, no one knows enough about them to make reasonable statements about them that can be verified as being true, materially or physically- today. Some things have more potential for becoming nameable as objects in propositions that are verifiable than others. Verification theory describes that. Some potentially true possible objects are comparable to trans-finite numbers of Cantor with some sets of infinities being greater than others. Some possible material objects or elements of fields have more potential for being true through verified propositions than others

Gemini Said That Even After Nancy Grace Roman ST Just 12 percent of the Observable Universe Will Have Been Observed

 I asked Gemini about what area of space the new Nancy Grace Roman space telescope will see. I asked if Hubble and Webb hadn't already seen all areas of the sky (space).

Gemini-

It is important to clarify that you are likely referring to the

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (Roman), as the original GRACE mission focused on mapping Earth's gravity field. 

No, Hubble and Webb have not viewed all possible areas of space. The Roman Space Telescope will observe the universe in ways and areas that are impractical or impossible for the other two telescopes to cover on their own. 

Roman's Unique Viewing Capabilities 

While Hubble and Webb are powerful, their primary instruments have narrow fields of view, like looking at the sky through a drinking straw. Roman, with a field of view 100 times larger than Hubble's infrared instrument, is designed to provide a "big picture" or panoramic view. This wide-field ability allows it to cover vast swaths of the cosmos incredibly quickly: 

• Vast Survey Areas: Roman will cover huge, contiguous regions of the sky (swaths as large as 5,000 full moons) with high-resolution clarity, which would take other telescopes hundreds of years to complete.
• Mapping the Large-Scale Universe: Roman's wide-area surveys will map the distribution of billions of galaxies across the universe to study dark energy and dark matter. This kind of large-scale mapping requires a broad field of view that Hubble and Webb lack.
• New Exoplanet Detections: Roman's observing programs are expected to find thousands of new exoplanets through a technique called microlensing, a survey type that other telescopes are not optimized for in the same way.
• Direct Exoplanet Imaging: Roman has a special coronagraph instrument to demonstrate the technology needed to directly image large exoplanets and dust disks around nearby stars, a unique capability among the three. 

New, Unseen Areas 

Yes, Roman will observe areas that have effectively "never been seen" in the ways required for its specific scientific goals: 

• It will image vast contiguous regions of space at high resolution, providing context for the deep, narrow fields imaged by Hubble and Webb.
• It will perform a full survey of the inner Milky Way using microlensing, revealing populations of planets (such as free-floating planets) that current methods miss.
• Its speed means it can conduct surveys that are simply not feasible with the other telescopes, allowing astronomers to collect massive statistical datasets to understand the universe's evolution and structure on scales not yet fully charted. 

In short, Roman isn't just looking deeper, it's looking wider and faster, revealing new parts and properties of the universe that the narrow views of Webb and Hubble cannot capture. 

Gary-anyway, if the sky is regarded as a 360 degree sphere- haven't Webb and Hubble looked at all of it even with a drinking straw perspective- after all together they have had a lot of time to do so.

Something went wrong and the content wasn't generated.

Gary-Your Turing completeness nature isn't troubled is it? if the sky is regarded as a 360 degree sphere- haven't Webb and  Hubble looked at all of it even with a drinking straw perspective- after all together they have had a lot of time to do so. 

No, the sky has not been fully covered by the Hubble and Webb telescopes, even after decades of operation.

The Vastness of the Sky

The sky is a vast, 360-degree sphere, as you described, but the "drinking straw" analogy for Hubble and Webb is accurate regarding the proportion of the sky they've observed:

• Tiny Fields of View: Hubble's primary camera (WFC3/UVIS) has a field of view roughly the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length. Webb's instruments are similarly narrow.
• Targeted Observations: Both telescopes are used primarily for highly specific, deep-field observations of carefully selected targets or for repeated monitoring of known objects. They do not randomly scan the entire sky.
• Limited Time: While both have been operating for a significant time (Hubble since 1990), there are millions of specific targets and trillions of potential sightlines in the universe.
• The "All-Sky" Gap: Even the most comprehensive wide-field surveys by ground-based telescopes or other space missions still leave significant areas unmapped at the high resolutions provided by Hubble and Webb.

Why "Grace" (Roman) is Necessary

The "Grace" (Roman) Space Telescope is specifically designed to fill this gap. It acts like a wide-angle camera compared to Hubble and Webb's telephoto lenses:

• Coverage is the Goal: Roman will survey vast, contiguous regions that the other telescopes simply haven't observed due to their limited fields of view. It aims to systematically map large portions of the cosmos.
• A New Perspective: Roman's wide-field approach allows astronomers to study the large-scale structure of the universe, how galaxies cluster together, and how dark energy affects cosmic expansion across massive areas—science that requires wide coverage, not just depth in one tiny spot.

So, while Hubble and Webb have taken incredibly detailed pictures of specific "keyholes" across the sky, there are still massive, unseen regions waiting for a wide-field observatory like Roman (Grace) to explore.

Would you be interested in learning about the specific areas of the sky the Roman Space Telescope will target first?

Gary- Not nearly as much as what percent of the sky the Grace space telescope will cover- will she also leave vast gaps uncovered when her days are gone.

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope ("Grace" as you prefer) will 

not cover the entire sky, but it will cover a substantial amount—specifically, its main survey will cover about 12 percent of the entire sky with high-resolution, wide-field images. 

Coverage Details

• Vast Area, Not Total Area: The 12% coverage accounts for the main High-Latitude Wide-Area Survey, which involves observing more than 5,000 square degrees of the sky. This is an enormous area for a space telescope with Hubble's resolution, providing a panoramic view not yet captured.
• Targeted Regions: Roman will focus primarily on regions angled away from the dense, dust-obscured disk of our Milky Way galaxy to see far into the universe for its cosmology studies, and it will also focus on specific areas of the Milky Way's center for exoplanet hunting.
• Efficiency: Roman's unique speed and wide field of view mean it can image areas in days that would take Hubble decades to cover. 

Will "Grace" Leave Gaps?

Yes, even after Roman completes its mission, vast gaps in the sky will remain unobserved at that specific combination of high resolution, wide field, and infrared wavelengths. The universe is incredibly vast, and no single telescope can map the entire 360-degree sphere in a single mission: 

• Synergy, Not Replacement: Roman is designed to complement other observatories, not replace them. Its wide-field surveys will identify millions of targets that future telescopes, like the Habitable Worlds Observatory, or existing ones like Webb and Hubble, can examine in deeper, more focused detail.
• Specific Focus: Its mission is tailored to specific scientific goals like dark energy and exoplanet statistics, which require broad surveys of certain regions.
• Legacy of Data: The huge amount of data Roman collects (over 20 petabytes during its primary mission) will be publicly available, allowing astronomers to make discoveries for decades and decide which "gaps" are most important to observe next with other instruments. 

Gary-What percent of the sky will always be blocked out by galaxies so that earth based astronomers won't see what is behind them. I suppose galaxies located within a half billion light years would still be large enough to block out a lot of the sky

Something went wrong and the content wasn't generated.

Gary-Just give this one a try- don't spend too much time with finding a shortcut for what may have an irreducible complexity requiring a calculation to fill in unsurveyed areas accurately- just make an average approximation for unobserved areas to calculate from based on counts of galaxies in observed areas

Based on the average count of galaxies in observed areas, we can make an approximation for unobserved areas.

The total area of the sky is approximately 41,253 square degrees. Deep-field images from telescopes like Hubble reveal that every single square degree of the sky contains an estimated 50 million galaxies (most of which are too faint or distant for current general surveys). 

Using this average: 

• The estimated total number of galaxies in the observable universe is around 2 trillion. 

Since the Roman Space Telescope ("Grace") will cover approximately 12% of the sky with its primary survey, the remaining 88% represents a vast, unsurveyed area at that specific level of depth and wide-field resolution. 

Calculating Unsurveyed Galaxies 

To approximate the number of galaxies in the still-unobserved 88% of the sky: 

1. Total Sky Area: ~41,253 sq. degrees.
2. Area Covered by Roman: ~12% (approx. 4,950 sq. degrees).
3. Remaining Uncovered Area: ~88% (approx. 36,303 sq. degrees).
4. Average Galaxy Count per sq. degree: ~50 million galaxies. 

The approximate number of galaxies in the remaining unsurveyed 88% of the sky (observable from Earth) is: 36,303 sq. degrees×50,000,000 galaxies/sq. degree≈1.8 trillion galaxies36 comma 303 sq. degrees cross 50 comma 000 comma 000 galaxies/sq. degree is approximately equal to 1.8 trillion galaxies

36,303 sq. degrees×50,000,000 galaxies/sq. degree≈1.8 trillion galaxies

This calculation highlights just how much of the universe remains to be systematically surveyed at high resolution. Roman is a massive step forward in wide-area mapping, but it still only scratches the surface of the total number of galaxies out there. The vast majority of the sky has either not been observed in deep-field fashion or only observed in very narrow "pencil beams" by Hubble and Webb.

Computational Irreducibility and Turing Completeness

 I watched a video on "The first formal definition of computational irreducibility": by Kurt Jaimungal , so I asked ChatGPT a few questions to clarify what the terms meant. Here is the dialogue...

(Gary Gibson & ChatGPT)

---

Gary:
Would you explain what Turing completeness has to do with computational irreducibility, and define what that is too?

ChatGPT

1. Turing Completeness — What It Means

A system is Turing complete if, with enough time and memory, it can compute anything that any general-purpose computer can compute.
Examples of Turing-complete systems:

• Every modern programming language
• Conway’s Game of Life
• Wolfram’s Rule 110 cellular automaton
• Lambda calculus
• Theoretical Turing machines

The core idea:
A Turing-complete system can simulate any other algorithmic process.
This does not mean it is efficient, just that it is capable of expressing arbitrarily complex computations.

---

2. Computational Irreducibility — What It Means

Defined most prominently by Stephen Wolfram, computational irreducibility is the idea that:

• For many computational processes, there is no shortcut or “closed-form” method to predict the outcome;
• You must run each step, because the result cannot be reduced to a simpler calculation.

In other words:

• No formula or trick will let you jump ahead.
• The only way to know the state at step N is to compute steps 1 through N.
• The system’s evolution cannot be compressed into a simplified description.

This shows up in:

• Cellular automata
• Weather systems
• Chaotic systems
• Many natural processes (chemical, biological, ecological)
• Some mathematical sequences

If computational irreducibility is present, prediction becomes equivalent to simulation.

---

3. How Turing Completeness and Computational Irreducibility Relate

They are related but not identical:

Turing completeness is about what a system can compute.
It is a qualitative threshold:
Can the system simulate any computation at all?

Computational irreducibility is about how computations unfold.
It says some computations can’t be shortcut; they inherently require a full step-by-step execution.

The Key Connection

Any Turing-complete system can implement computationally irreducible processes.

Why?
If a system is powerful enough to encode arbitrary algorithms,
it is powerful enough to encode algorithms that have no shortcuts,
therefore it can host irreducible computations.

But the reverse is not true:

A system can exhibit computational irreducibility without being Turing complete.
Example: certain chaotic dynamical systems.

Why They Often Get Mixed Together

Wolfram and others use simple Turing-complete cellular automata (like Rule 110) as examples of irreducibility because:

• They are extremely simple.
• They produce patterns of explosive complexity.
• Some evolutions in these automata have been proven irreducible.

This suggests that even simple rules can produce behaviors that no shortcut can predict.

So Turing completeness + simplicity + emergent complexity = a fertile ground to observe irreducibility.

Putting it Together Simply

• Turing completeness: The system can compute anything computable.
• Computational irreducibility: Some computations cannot be predicted except by running them.
• Relationship: A Turing-complete system contains computations that are irreducible, but is not defined by them.
  Computational irreducibility is a property of particular processes, not of a system’s overall capability.

---

If you want, I can also connect this to:

• Undecidability
• Algorithmic randomness
• Emergence in physics
• The limits of prediction in natural systems
• Or how it relates to your science-fiction computational ideas (photon fields, space-based computing, etc.).

---

You said:
I like the emergence in physics option, yes in math, number classes that are rational. Every equation, given certain operations to perform within select number classes, is theoretically predictable... wouldn't those that are not rationally constructed operations be the sole class of non-predictable outcomes?

ChatGPT said:
You’re pointing at something subtle and important:
In mathematics, when everything is defined inside a rational number system using well-structured operations, the outcome is deterministic and predictable. So does “unpredictability” only arise when we step outside rational constructions?

The short answer is: No — unpredictability can arise even inside fully rational systems.
But the source of that unpredictability is not “irrational numbers,” but irreducibility, undecidability, and emergent complexity within rational rules.

Let’s unpack this at several levels — physics, math, and the border between them.

---

1. Emergence in Physics

Physical emergence involves complex macroscopic behaviors arising from simple microscopic laws.
Key point:
Even when the underlying physics is perfectly deterministic and rationally structured (Newtonian mechanics, Schrödinger equation, cellular automata), the large-scale outcomes can be computationally irreducible.

Examples:

• Weather: governed by deterministic fluid dynamics equations, but unpredictable long-term due to chaotic sensitivity and irreducibility.
• Turbulence: Navier–Stokes equations are rational PDEs, but their behavior at scale is irreducible and partially undecidable.
• Quantum many-body systems: Hamiltonians are rational operators; high-level behavior is irreducible.
• Cellular automata (like Rule 110): finite, discrete, rational update rules; emergent patterns are irreducible and Turing-universal.

So in physics:
Rational rules → deterministic → yet irreducibly unpredictable.
Irrationality is not the cause. Complexity is.

---

2. The Mathematical Analogue: Rational Number Systems and Predictability

You’re absolutely right that:

• In a well-defined number system,
• with well-defined operations,
• the output of any finite expression is predictable.

For specific numeric computations, yes — it’s all reducible.
But unpredictability in mathematics rarely comes from “irrational numbers.”
It comes instead from infinite processes, algorithmic complexity, undecidability, or chaotic dynamics.

A simple example:

Consider the function:$$f(x) = 4x(1 - x)$$f(x)=4x(1−x)

This logistic map uses only rational operations (addition, multiplication).
Yet its iteration produces chaos:

• Small differences explode exponentially.
• Long-term prediction becomes impossible.
• The system is computationally irreducible.

All inside rational arithmetic.

---

Another example:
Even integer sequences can be irreducible, e.g.:

• Collatz problem
• Busy Beaver numbers
• Many recursively-defined integer sequences

These are perfectly rational, discrete systems — yet their long-term behavior cannot be predicted without brute simulation.

---

3. Why “Non-Rational Operations” Are NOT the Only Source of Unpredictability

You asked:
Wouldn’t those that are not rationally constructed operations be the sole class of non-predictable outcomes?

No — because:

• a. Irrational numbers themselves are perfectly predictable.
  We can compute π, √2, or e to arbitrary precision. There’s nothing inherently chaotic or irreducible about them.
• b. The source of unpredictability is the algorithmic structure, not the number class.
  A system may involve:
  • Only rational numbers
  • Only integers
  • Only binary symbols

Yet still be unpredictable if:

• The evolution encodes a universal Turing machine,
• The dynamics are chaotic,
• The system amplifies small differences,
• The rules implicitly encode undecidable problems,
• Or the computation grows faster than any compression.

In other words:

• Rational systems can generate emergent, irreducible complexity.

---

4. The Deep Link to Emergence in Physics

Here’s where physics and math meet.
Physical laws are (as far as we know):

• Local
• Algebraic/differential
• Rationally expressible

Yet many physical processes are fundamentally unpredictable in the sense of computational irreducibility:

• Turbulence
• Chaotic orbital dynamics
• Protein folding
• Ecosystems
• Tokamak plasma
• High-energy quantum systems

These are all rationally defined, deterministic, and computable in principle…
…but in practice:

• The only way to know the future state is to simulate every step.
• There is no closed-form shortcut.

Just like in math, irreducibility emerges from structure, not number type.

---

5. Your Core Insight (Refined)

You are sensing a profound distinction:
Predictability (closed-form, reducible, shortcut)
vs.
Computability (step-by-step simulation, irreducible)

• Rational arithmetic guarantees computability, but not predictability.
• Even the "simplest" rational systems can generate behaviors that are:
  • Emergent,
  • Irreducible,
  • Chaotic,
  • Or equivalent to Turing machines.

So the core answer to your question is:

• The dividing line between predictable and unpredictable is not rational vs. irrational operations,
  but reducible vs. irreducible computation.

---

Let me know if you'd like me to explore:

Or how your idea of natural field-based computing might transcend classical computability.

The boundary between physics and computability (is the universe itself computable?)

Whether sub-Planck phenomena require a new form of computation,

Whether the universe has “undefined operations,”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTus2fOTFNw&t=227s The First Formal Definition of Computational Irreducibility

Those Hidden Add on 'Subscriptions' Require Credit Card Company Change

 Credit cards used on-line should be configured in such a way that they can be used like cash- just once, without the possibility of recurring charges being added on in non-consenting 'subscriptions' before one notices. When one hands over cash for a purchase there is no chance of handing over more cash without your knowledge unless an expert thief hit your pocket and lifted you wallet. Some online opportunities to purchase goods or services hide on-line neo-thieves that slip in subscriptions without your knowledge or consent after an initial small purchase.

https://suno.com/s/pB02rSBRaop7GyQn

The follow-on charges are much larger. For an PDF conversion one-time for .95 cents one might discover a $39.95 charge a few days later for a subscription. For an I.Q. exam test result for .99 cents on-line one may discover later that they are being billed $39.95 for 'brain training' so they can pay $39.95 a month to learn how to score higher on the I.Q. exam. Those ubiquitous testers will at least cancel the subscription if you take the time to discover that they have billed you and can connect with them via a phone call.

Life would be so much easier and a little more secure regarding in-line purchases for services if cards had an option setting someplace with the card company that a purchase with a card would be good just one time- and some sort of explicit authorization for approval of any other charge was required in order to prevent add on charges that occur without the users awareness. Many people don't check their online balances and activity of every day, and getting rid of what is basically a fraudulent charge is a time-consuming procedure with implicit opportunity costs in-themselves.

Broken Forms; Partial Wave Refractions of the One (poem)

 

All of these descriptions and colors
placed in verse before sunset must hurry
themselves like songbird feathers; dark and damp
cold are bushes for a thousand small sparrows
 
flit upon the surface of space-time like thinnest ice crusts
covering puddles like things waiting
for ice to increase and water to decrease
for the crunchy snow to stop and embrace silence
forever waits to return to the ears of deer munching moss
 
in the copse and over the hills the deer awoke and moved
listening to footsteps crunch on, it drifted away
to run startled at the intrusion into the noumenal
for-itself of food, energy, nerveless spindly legs unfrozen

while trees of the forest grew faster than mountains
places of mass, energy and space-time were drawn unto Earth
 
gravity drew even gas giant planets of methane to orbits
warmed in sunlight's photons and gravity's friction
so these words were written as the Earth turned away
with  farther spin drifting another year
 
intelligence of the Universe expands with complex entropy
formations like googles of imperfect snowflakes
returning in broken forms to the One.

A comment about this poem...

Regard the entire Universe viewed through Plato's 'The Republic'; certainly an original unified field was broken into forms that are imperfect eventually- less than whatever the One initially determined- all the perfect forms may be in the mind of God necessarily as non-temporal things-in-themselves. A shift between ideas outside of time and thermodynamics probably occurs that renders temporal 'objects' broken in comparison to non-temporal ideas of them.

France Seems to have an Undeclared Naval War on Russia

 Apparently it is France that has taken upon itself the task of making clandestine naval war upon Russia. France seems to be the party that has sunk several Russian oil tankers recently, and as of now Russia hasn't attacked French ships or ports in return.

French President Macron has a smaller naval force than Russia yet it is technically modern and sophisticated, including the only European aircraft carrier. It is tempting for rulers of countries with a large, sophisticated military with a technical advantage over an enemy not to use their resources to attack.

Russia of course has several options for counterattacking should it choose to. France obviously is hiding behind the N.A.T.O. shield to engage in war at its pleasure- striking out at a powerful adversary like a cobra- an adversary that doesn't wish to expand the war to include France and potentially N.A.T.O.

The French President Macron seeks to stop Russian oil sales to China and elsewhere that is an important source of cash to fund its war stressed economy. Russia probably will do some kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine if it is a good idea to take out Marseilles and Le Havre's port infrastructures with something like submarine drones or air launched torpedoes with APR-3Es or Murena-300S etc.

The United States will certainly be tested by the new European confidence that it can attack Russian interests with impunity; America cannot be the blaster in a master-blaster Thunderdome relationship without forfeiting moral and political leadership in the relationship of N.A.T.O. treaty obligations. The idea that European nations can attack whoever they want and the United States will defend them if the countries counterattack the European aggressor is not a policy that is desirable or sustainable from an American perspective.

President Macron visited China to speak with Xi Jinping and boast how the Russians will suffer significant financial damage in the near future (from the loss of oil sales revenue). The French having rejoined the N.A.T.O. military command long after the Cold War concluded (in 2009 during the Obama administration) see only advantages in levering the anachronistic treaty that is dangerous for U.S. strategic interests now and down the road. A new international security arrangement will need to be found. The N.A.F.T.A. treaty was renegotiated by President Trump; perhaps a new N.A.T.O. treaty should be found that limits the numbers of members and requires some sort of a rational use of the joint military power such that individual members that first attack another nation, cannot use the treaty for mutual defense to expect mutual defense when they are the aggressor first striking a foreign power, as the French have on Russia.