Hello 2013 (Time Traveler from 2043)

[JDHollisterTitor]

32991413 {MDR1} crosseightcm end

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140619/ncomms5145/full/ncomms5145.html
New Type Of Computer Capable Of Calculating 640TBs Of Data In One Billionth Of A Second, Could Revolutionize Computing | IFLScience
Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


'83F5'

'ks'

'83F5'

'908B'

'840C'

32991413 = 7*13*181*2003

32991684 = 2^2*3*11*109*2293

04:00:00:00=1404014400000
11:05:32:17=1404227132283
2272087227.966 = 2041/12/31
2305078776.47 = 2043/01/17
2338070324.978 = 2044/02/02

Aevi, I know Stokes' theorem like the back of my head. I very much enjoy you.

 

[Sanyam Deshi]

My last statement was a response to Paradox. I'm terribly sorry, but I have been busy.
But, who doesn't talk to themselves?

Ah, well, on the subject of DNA, the mathematics that apply to the self replication of automata was written many years before the discovery of the genome. Watson and Crick upon discovering the molecular structure of DNA, couldn't understand how it worked. Crick linked DNA to Brenner and von Neumann's work on Self Replicating Automata, and realized that it was hereditary information. The same principles applied to genetics.

Spoiler: “45: John von Neumann and the history of DNA and self-replication:

“45: John von Neumann and the history of DNA and self-replication:
What influenced me the most was the articles of von Neumann. Now, I had become interested in von Neumann not through the coding issues but through his interest in the nervous system and computers and of course, that’s what Seymour was interested in because what we wanted to do is find out how the brain worked; that was what… you know, like a hobby on the side, you know. After… after dinner we’d work on central problems of the brain, you see, but it was trying to find out how this worked. And so I got this symposium, the Hixon Symposium, which I had got to read. I was, at that time, very fascinated by a rather strange complexion of psychology things by a man called Wolfgang Köhler who was a gestalt psychologist and another man called Lewin, who was what was called a topological psychologist and of course they were talking at a very different level, but in this book there is an article by Köhler and of course in that book there’s this very famous paper which no one has ever read of von Neumann. Now of course later I discovered that those ideas were much older than the dating of this and that people had taken notes of them and they had circulated. But what is the brilliant part of this paper is in fact his description of what it takes to make a self-reproducing machine. And in fact if you look at what he says and what Schrödinger says, you can see what I have come to call Schrödinger’s fundamental error, and in fact we can… I can find you the passage in that. But it’s an amazing passage, because what von Neumann shows is that you have to have a mechanism not only of copying the machine but of copying the information that specifies the machine, right, so that he then divided the machine – the… the automaton as he called it – into three components: the functional part of the automaton; a… a decoding section of this which is part of that, which actually takes the tape, reads the instructions and builds the automaton; and a device that takes a copy of this tape and inserts it into the new automaton, right, which is the essential… essential, fundamental… and when von Neumann said that is the logical basis of self-reproduction, then you can see where Schrödinger made his mistake and this can be summarised in one sentence. Schrödinger says the chromosomes contain the information to specify the future organism and the means to execute it and that’s not true. The chromosomes contain the information to specify the future organisation and a description of the means to implement, but not the means themselves, and that logical difference is made so crystal clear by von Neumann and that to me, was in fact… The first time now of course, I wasn’t smart enough to really see that this is what DNA is all about, and of course it is one of the ironies of this entire field that were you to write a history of ideas in the whole of DNA, simply from the documented information as it exists in the literature, that is a kind of Hegelian history of ideas, you would certainly say that Watson and Crick depended on von Neumann, because von Neumann essentially tells you how it’s done and then you just… DNA is just one of the implementations of this. But of course, none knew anything about the other, and so it’s a… it’s a great paradox to me that in fact this connection was not seen. Linus Pauling is present at that meeting because he gives this False Theory of Antibodies there. That means he heard von Neumann, must have known von Neumann, but he couldn’t put that together with DNA and of course… well, neither could Linus Pauling put his own paper together with his future work because he and Delbrück wrote a paper on self… on self-complementation – two pieces of information – in about 1949 and had forgotten it by the time he did DNA, so that of course leads to a really distrust about what all the historians of science say, especially those of the history of ideas. But I think that that in a way is part of our kind of revolution in thinking, namely the whole of the theory of computation, which I think biologists have yet to assimilate and yet is there and it’s a… it’s an amazingly paradoxical field. You know, most fields start by struggling through from, from experimental confusion through early theoretical, you know, self-delusion, finally to the great generality and this field starts the other way round. It starts with a total abstract generality, namely it starts with, with Gödel’s hypothesis or the Turing machine, and then it takes, you know, 50 years to descend into… into banality, you see. So it’s the field that goes the other way and that is again remarkable, you know, and they cross each other at about 1953, you know: von Neumann on the way down, Watson and Crick on the way up. It was never put together.

Life is a process that can be abstracted away from any particular medium.[/QUOTE]
This conversation has been fairly distracted as of late. I'd like to put it back on track. What has happened over the last few weeks? I have seen that some of your more recent posts have shown evidence of being cryptic. If this was the intention, I don't see the incentive because any message that could be decoded by its intended targets could also end up being decoded by those who caused the need for an encryption in the first place. You had been so crystal clear in earlier updates, and I'm sure some of us would be thrilled to hear the latest agenda.

 

[Aevi Vegr]

There has been some confusion, and I haven't had the time or the will to walk back into it and straighten everything out.
First, I did not leave that message on the Catholic Forum. I am not Catholic. It was a very creative message, but it deceived many of you to thinking it was me. If it was me, I haven't yet left the message. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the message do ring true.
I am 25. I celebrated my 20th birthday here almost a year ago. Time has passed for me. This is all I have time for at the moment. I will try to get back by Friday to finish explaining, as it is a long story.

 

[Rawknee]

There has been some confusion, and I haven't had the time or the will to walk back into it and straighten everything out.
First, I did not leave that message on the Catholic Forum. I am not Catholic. It was a very creative message, but it deceived many of you to thinking it was me. If it was me, I haven't yet left the message. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the message do ring true.
I am 25. I celebrated my 20th birthday here almost a year ago. Time has passed for me. This is all I have time for at the moment. I will try to get back by Friday to finish explaining, as it is a long story.

Hi Aevi,

I'm new to this forum, and site in general; I've enjoyed reading your various posts, as well as some of the responses. That's all I wanted to say for now.

 

[PaulaJedi]

There has been some confusion, and I haven't had the time or the will to walk back into it and straighten everything out.
First, I did not leave that message on the Catholic Forum. I am not Catholic. It was a very creative message, but it deceived many of you to thinking it was me. If it was me, I haven't yet left the message. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the message do ring true.
I am 25. I celebrated my 20th birthday here almost a year ago. Time has passed for me. This is all I have time for at the moment. I will try to get back by Friday to finish explaining, as it is a long story.

May I ask you a bunch of questions?

 

[walt willis]

Wow! What a wild ride...

First off we may want to consider if time travel is truly possible and then once we can accept that as fact we may be able to believe that a time traveler would take the time to visit us at this forum.

I would most likely not have the time to play around with people on this forum or be so bored that I would waste my time here.

It could be that a 25 year old would enjoy the discourse, but at the age of 67, not so much...

So I'll share what I believe is my view of time travel be letting you listen to a 50 minute interview that I think is on the mark.

Published on Jul 2, 2014
Legendary UFO researchers Linda Moulton-Howe and Richard Dolan on the most viable theories of UFOs,
alien abduction.
Are we being visited by people from other planets, or are flying saucers inhabited by demonic
entities or dwellers from the hollow Earth. Or are flying saucers relics of the Nazi-Aldeberan?

 

[Ayasano]

Regarding your cylinder, Aevi:

Have any corrections or notice anything off in my math?

You mean other than the fact that the top left photo asserts that 3^2 = -1? C'mon man, at least proofread.

 

[Ayasano]

First off we may want to consider if time travel is truly possible and then once we can accept that as fact we may be able to believe that a time traveler would take the time to visit us at this forum.

I would most likely not have the time to play around with people on this forum or be so bored that I would waste my time here.

It could be that a 25 year old would enjoy the discourse, but at the age of 67, not so much...

Honestly, if I got hold of a time machine I'd be going forward, not back like most of the claims on here. Imagine the technology you could find! Personally, I'm holding out for some life-extending nanobots and a bit of extra cranial processing power. (Not to mention a better time machine)

 

[PaulaJedi]

First off we may want to consider if time travel is truly possible and then once we can accept that as fact we may be able to believe that a time traveler would take the time to visit us at this forum.

I would most likely not have the time to play around with people on this forum or be so bored that I would waste my time here.

It could be that a 25 year old would enjoy the discourse, but at the age of 67, not so much...

Honestly, if I got hold of a time machine I'd be going forward, not back like most of the claims on here. Imagine the technology you could find! Personally, I'm holding out for some life-extending nanobots and a bit of extra cranial processing power. (Not to mention a better time machine)

I'd have to meet Nikola Tesla. It's back for me!

 

[Unidade C204]

Greetings Floyd Ellison, you said you're willing to show us more about your time machine, so I wanted some pictures of her, thanks