On November 5, 2019 10:41:28 PM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0" wrote:

too bad there was no 'big bang explosion' - that's pseudo scientific garbage from the jew-kristian creationists who have merely repackaged their creationist bullshit.

Wait, you don't believe in the standard model of physics? I mean, it's just a model, and it has problems. But it also has had amazing predictive capability, and it's real science. Anyway, it has fuck all to do with religion. Einstein was ethnically Jewish, but he was also a genius. And an agnostic person of no particular religious faith (I think he identified with Spinoza a little bit, pantheism, which is hard to call religious belief).

On November 6, 2019 4:27:06 AM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0" wrote:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:31:29 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

On November 5, 2019 10:41:28 PM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0"

wrote:

...

...

too bad there was no 'big bang explosion' - that's pseudo scientific garbage from the jew-kristian creationists who have merely repackaged their creationist bullshit.

Wait, you don't believe in the standard model of physics?

wait, you believe the ridiculous big bang bullshit, which, I should have added, comes from a fucking CATHOLIC PRIEST? =)

If Lemaitre hadn't noticed it, someone else would've. The big bang theory is a result of observations of our expanding, red-shifted universe. All sorts of observations back up the general idea, e.g. cosmic background radiation. Do I believe that the universe actually started from a literal "big bang"? I have no idea, it seems odd. What was there before the big bang? There are other models, but at minimum it's an extraordinarily useful scientific model.

...

I mean, it's just a model, and it has problems. But it also has had

amazing

...

predictive capability, and it's real science.

not sure what you mean by 'standard model of physics' but it should be

The standard model of particle physics (which actually excludes quantum mechanics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

obvious that 'cosmology' and all the pseudo philosophic charlatanry around 'quantum mechanics' is not 'real science'(TM) at all.

How is it obvious that quantum mechanics is not "real science"? We don't have a working unified field theory or a quantum model of gravity, but quantum mechanic effects have been observed in a variety of ways. Though, I wouldn't vouch for any of the current crop of so-called "quantum computers" ;)

...

Anyway, it has fuck all to do with religion. Einstein was ethnically

Jewish, but

...

he was also a genius. And an agnostic person of no particular religious

I didnt have einstein in mind but lemaitre. But of course einstein being an european jew puts him straight into the religious creationist nutcase category, at least nominally. And he subscribed to the big bang bullshit? oh wait... =)

He was a European Jew - so the fuck what? So were however many millions that died in the Holocaust. I brought Einstein up specifically because he was ethnically Jewish, but he was not a religious guy. He was a scientist, and his early work helped pave the way for the idea of the big bang. I don't know what he thought about the big bang, although he pretty much hated quantum mechanics ;). The difference between all this and religion should be clear. It's based on research, math, observation. It isn't absurd dogma handed down in some crappy priest-fic to dominate a certain part of the population. Should we say that giving the universe an age of 13.8 billion years (based on scientific shit like the big bang), or 6000 years (based on adding up the ages of the fucking patriarchs in the bible ;) are both ridiculous fantasy numbers from the jewish-kkkristians in charge?

...

faith (I think he identified with Spinoza a little bit, pantheism, which is hard to call religious belief).

On November 6, 2019 5:56:45 AM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0" wrote:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 04:57:56 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

On November 6, 2019 4:27:06 AM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0"

...

...

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:31:29 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

On November 5, 2019 10:41:28 PM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0"

wrote:

...

...

too bad there was no 'big bang explosion' - that's pseudo scientific garbage from the jew-kristian creationists who have merely repackaged their creationist bullshit.

Wait, you don't believe in the standard model of physics?

wait, you believe the ridiculous big bang bullshit, which, I should have added, comes from a fucking CATHOLIC PRIEST? =)

If Lemaitre hadn't noticed it, someone else would've. The big bang

wrote: theory is

...

a result of observations of our expanding,

Expanding? So where's the center of the universe, the place where the 'big bang' started?

...

red-shifted universe. All sorts of observations back up the general idea, e.g. cosmic background radiation.

Do I believe that the universe actually started from a literal "big bang"? I have no idea, it seems odd. What was there before the big bang?

Yeah. And all the insane amounts of matter that can be seen in the universe were compressed in a single point? Boy. It seems to me that believing that takes even more faith than believing in the bible...

I imagine you know who alexander shulgin was? Have you ever read this?

http://tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/bigbang.html

He explains a lot better than me both the absurdity of the 'big bang' (time-wise) and the creationist nature of it.

Shulgin is probably my favorite chemist, but he's not a physicist ;)

...

There are other models, but at minimum it's an extraordinarily useful scientific model.

how is the big bang tale 'useful'?

There's a difference between a 'tale' and a scientific model .

...

...

obvious that 'cosmology' and all the pseudo philosophic charlatanry around 'quantum mechanics' is not 'real science'(TM) at all.

How is it obvious that quantum mechanics is not "real science"?

I was referring to the countless 'interpretations' of QM. Most of them absurd, and contradicting each other.

Then you have some phenomena and some equations that 'work', but they don't support any of the bullshit, cheap-sci-fi 'interpretations'.

...

We don't have a working unified field theory or a quantum model of gravity, but quantum mechanic effects have been observed in a variety of ways. Though, I wouldn't vouch for any of the current crop of so-called "quantum computers" ;)

Heh. Even the engineering side of QM includes a lot of handwaving...Yeah, most of the time they don't even know if the computers are 'working'.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3192

On the other hand yes, there are phenomena related to the subatomic structure of matter, equations to describe them, stuff that works based on those phenomena, etc. But that doesn't mean any of the bullshit about 'parallel universes' 'teleportation' 'consciousness' 'non-causality' bla bla bla is true.

...

...

...

Anyway, it has fuck all to do with religion. Einstein was

ethnically

...

...

Jewish, but

...

he was also a genius. And an agnostic person of no particular religious

I didnt have einstein in mind but lemaitre. But of course einstein being an european jew puts him straight into the religious creationist nutcase category, at least nominally. And he subscribed to the big bang bullshit? oh wait... =)

He was a European Jew - so the fuck what? So were however many millions that died in the Holocaust.

....the hell has the so called 'holocaust' got to do with anything?

Nothing, just like Einstein's ethnicity has fuck all to do with his work. That's my point.

How many people died during the two world wars? How many murderer by the US govt? Etc etc etc.

anyway, my point stands, the big bang theory comes straight from jew-kristian europeans, and it is creationist bullshit like jew-kristianity. See shulgin.

...

I brought Einstein up specifically because he was ethnically Jewish, but he was not a religious guy. He was a scientist, and his early work helped pave the way for the idea of the big bang.

right, all the nonsense about 'curved space time' paves the way for more pseudo scientific tales.

So now you are saying, what, relativity is bullshit too? Lol. Newtonian physics don't keep satellites rotating around the earth, they don't do shit really, if you care about accuracy.

...

I don't know what he thought about the big bang, although he pretty

much hated quantum

...

mechanics ;).

yeah, that was actually his more rational side. So I guess I could side with einstein on that and invoke his alleged 'genius' status? =)

...

The difference between all this and religion should be clear. It's based on research, math, observation. It isn't absurd dogma handed down in some crappy priest-fic to dominate a certain part of the

population.

except, the research, math and observation do not lead the the alleged conclusion.

...

Should we say that giving the universe an age of 13.8 billion years

...

scientific shit like the big bang), or 6000 years (based on adding up

(based on the ages of the

...

fucking patriarchs in the bible ;) are both ridiculous fantasy numbers from the jewish-kkkristians in charge?

yes, that's the point. Of course the current theory has a veneer of 'science' on it. But it perfectly shows that people do not know what 'science' actually is, and they confuse it with the worst kind of cheap pseudo philosophy there is.

You should ask what sort of questions can 'science' answer? Mechanics for instance can tell you how bodies move, but it can't tell you how they were 'created' or where they come from.

Heavy atoms (heavier than hydrogen & helium) are forged in the hearts of stars. Stars and planets form from the accretion of matter, due to gravity. Where did the shit all ORIGINALLY come from? I don't know, but the big bang is at the very least a useful model.

...

...

...

faith (I think he identified with Spinoza a little bit, pantheism, which is hard to call religious belief).

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, 11:21:04 PM PST, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote: On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 06:49:13 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

theory is

...

a result of observations of our expanding,

    Expanding? So where's the center of the universe, the place where the 'big bang' started?

  >  I notice you ignored the question. So again, where's the center of the universe.  First, you are assuming that there is a "center" of (our) universe.   You don't explain why you think that is true, or at least why it's location can be known.  That not clear.   One common analogy is to view the 'universe' as a somewhat inflated balloon, and consider a tiny ant walking on its surface.  The surface of that balloon is essentially 2-dimensional, one fewer dimension than what we know of as space,.  (3D+time).   The ant is confined to that 2-d surface:  That is the 'place' (the universe) he thinks he is at.  And the exact point he is at is a single point on that surface. If that ant were sentient, and he asked, "Where did the expansion of this place start?", perhaps the most accurate answer that he can be given is "It expanded simultaneously from each point that you can get to."  In other words, from each point on the "universe" he can get to.  He will probably be unsatisfied with that answer, particularly if he thinks that the "center" must be some specific zero-dimensional point that he could somehow travel to.  But, viewed from a higher dimension, we see that every point on that balloon is topologically equivalent:  There is no one 'special' point that he can get to, in order to call it "the center of the universe". Jim Bell

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 05:41:48PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:40:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

First, you are assuming that there is a "center" of (our) universe. 

Of course. At least there should be one, according to the big bang bullshit tale.

It is claimed based on observed 'redshifts' that stars are moving. So, it should be easy to compute the direction of the movement, reverse it, and see where it points to. That's where the matter allegedly came from.

...

 You don't explain why you think that is true, or at least why it's location can be known. 

I really shouldn't have to explain it, though I just did above. The fact that you ask for an explanation seems to suggest you are not making any basic inference from the big bang bullshit tale. So that's your problem, not mine.

...

That not clear.   One common analogy is to view the 'universe' as a somewhat inflated balloon,

sorrrryyyyy. We are talking about physical reality. Spare me the 'analogies' piled upon already absurd tales.

If you can't explain it in physical terms based on experience (and you can't), then it is bullshit.

We exist in 3D space. Stuff is allegedly moving. So WHERE did the movenment start.

AIUI: - If the balloon analogy were a ballon fact (say the universe is ballow in 3D shape), - and the expansion is accellerating, - and has been accelerating for a very long time, - then the limits of what we can see are at the edges of our light cone - and it could (here's the superstitious theory, not fact, part of this story) appear the same for every "point in the universe" The reason that last step is superstitious is that, assuming the expanding balloon theory, there must be SOME galaxies somewhere that don't have "galaxies further away from themselves" - i.e. from -their- point of view, they would be near or indeed at, the very edge of the actual (expanding balloon) universe. This could theoretically give rise to conclusions and possible things that could be tested, but IDK about this. One problem with the above theory (it's not a fact, but a theory or "model" from which certain conclusions were able to be tested such as CBR) is that it appears not ultimately testable. A second problem is that by stroke of pure luck, our particular galaxy happens to be pretty well "central" or at least "nowhere near any edge of this grand universe"; - in other words, at least visibly ("within our light cone", another theory), we're back to cosmic "we're at the centre of the universe" old Jewish/Christianity beliefs, and attempting to explain reality around this belief. It could be that the universe is far larger than we imagine and that there are many light cones between us and the edge of the physical universe. IDK if math can be sensibly applied to determine max/min possible counts of such light cones. In any case, we do not yet know, meaning our present theories are insufficient to the task of solving these riddles, and we don't know if our universe is shaped like a balloon, and we don't even know if the light-cone theory is sufficiently flawed as to be leading us astray in our thinking about the present theories. That's why they're called theories, models, or posulates, not facts. These theory thoughts might be seductive muffas, but they still ain't facts :)

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:10:34 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

You cannot even define the number of dimensions until some places are further away from other places. There was no space as we understand space in ordinary daily life, and if there was time, not as we understand time.

notice that the one telling such an absurd tale is a far-right-wing piece of shit. He's quite comfortable with spewing religious nonsense that makes him feel like he 'understand' a completely absurd tale, and that the little piece of shit, KNOWS how the 'universe' 'started'. yeah, I wouldn't expect less from white, jew-kristian, european trash. Cosmic, boundless arrogance.

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:50:41PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 09:10:34 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

The explosion was the three dimensions of space and the dimension of time coming into being, distance becoming large enough to be meaningful,

So, here's the basics :

Time and Space are the stage where physical reality happens. If there are no Time and Space, then nothing can happen. If there's no Time, nothing moves. And Time can't start to magically flow at some 'time'(LMAO), just because. Then again, Our Lord Scientists aren't bothered by Causality are they.

Notice that the pieces of jew-kristian shit like to believe that their cunt-god 'exists' outside of time and space. And that is, of course, religious bullshit. And now we have the same charlatans pretending that 'before'(LMAO!!!) the 'big bang', the universe too existed outside of time. You might want to learn the difference between physics and metaphysical speculation.

"time coming into being" Yeah, time and space 'being created'. Hey John, did I mention that this is all creationist bullshit? See, your friend James parrots it to a tee as well =) You're in a good company eh? =)

Haha. Don’t fucking lump me in with Jimmy the fascist. It’s not my fault he has a decent grip on a few well-known theories. If you wanna know how he actually thinks, and its bonkers as fuck, just visit his blog: https://blog.jim.com - worth a few laughs :) Anyway, as I said from the get-go all of this seems to me a useful model. It doesn’t mean we actually know what happened. It’s a theory, backed by observation, that can make predictable results. It's not dogma, just like relativity isn’t dogma, no matter how much of a jew Einstein was :)

...

so that it became possible for space and time to even have dimensionality, and then rapidly becoming enormous, so enormous that stuff that was once in the same place as us,

"same place as us"? Dude, you can't be that fucking retarded can you? =)

Yes YOU CAN! The stupid cunt wants to claim both that there was 'no space' and that all matter of the universe was "in the same PLACE as us".

...

there being no other place,

....

...

indeed no places at all,

This is too much =) The cunt isn't contradicting itself only once per sentence. Every word he writes is a contradiction =)

...

is now so distant as to be outside our light cone, and likely to remain forever outside our light cone.

amen brother - keep preachin!!

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 19:36:49 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote:

That's right, so why did StackExchange become a CHURCH for the orthodoxy?

Hehe. What else did you expect. The only half interesting question is, how would stack exchange NOT become a propaganda outlet. Do you have to sign the pledge of alliance to feminazim to join already?

Mother fuckers won't let me post alternative theories, unless they've been vetted by some publishing magnate or such.

Where do you think you're living? You're living in John's little 'progressive' world, where children learn what an amazin genius einstein was, while they are mentally raped in public schools. Hell, otherwise we'd have CHAOS 'N ANARCHY. poor little joos.

Thank you for letting me address you as "buttfucks", because I'm sure I know more than the orthodoxy at this point, and I've been fucking ripped open two new assholes during the process. I'm not even kidding.

Marxos

ps: yes, physics is just events in Three Spatial Dimentions and Time. No Time and Space? No physics and no nothing then.

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:07:38 -0600 "\\0xDynamite" wrote:

Hey now, no need to get all biased, athist. You've got no proof either, so you and the joos are on the same footing....

I've got no proof of what?

but then again, they reportedly have an observation... which, nominally puts in the realm of FACT. You don't have an observation of the non-existance of GOD. OH THATS RIGHT, YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

lawl. I wasn't talking about your jew-kristian, non-existent cunt-god.

...

ps: yes, physics is just events in Three Spatial Dimentions and Time. No Time and Space? No physics and no nothing then.

...

OHISEENOW... YOU CANNOT IMAGINE SCIENCE OUTSIDE OF YOUR MODEL. Please go back to PHILOSOPHY and get out of science for awhile.

haha. I'm not 'going back' to philosophy. I AM in philosophy and that's what allows me to laugh at the 'scientific' charlatans.

Cheers, and MATE.

Marxos

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:55:55 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2019-11-07 06:41, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

...

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:40:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

...

First, you are assuming that there is a "center" of (our) universe.�

Of course. At least there should be one, according to the big bang bullshit tale.

You are an ignorant idiot,

priceless

talking about stuff you don't understand.

The big bang was not an explosion expanding into a previously empty space.

The big bang was space itself exploding.

'space' is nothing you stupid cunt. A void. And 'nothing' can't explode. Nothing can do nothing. It's hilarious that you can't appreciate how ridiculous and absurd the idea of an 'exploding' emptiness is. Hey, look at this thing that doesn't exist! It's a non-existent thing, and it can have any property I choose! Like unicorns.

I am tempted to explain spontaneous symmetry breaking and its implications for the anthropic principle, but I fear you have driven anyone capable of understanding such issues away

uh oh. Look at the litle piece of fascist troskyte shit. He's also a monkey parroting pseudo 'scientific' nonsense. How...unsurprising.

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:03:06 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

I notice you ignored the question. So again, where's the center of the universe.

Within our light cone, I don't think the universe has a center, per se.

what? Light cone?

I don't really remember, and im tired ;)

ha - you've forgotten your brainwashing? Looks like your govt schools need MORE FUNDING =)

...

...

Shulgin is probably my favorite chemist, but he's not a physicist ;)

Neither are you. On the other hand, shulgin was no doubt a 'scientist'...Then again, I'm just playing your recourse-to-authority game.

Lol, neither are you!

Right. And? I mean, come on. Your original objection to shulgin is clearly null and void. You didn't read what he wrote, you just made an irrelevant comment about him.

It's my game now that I point out your authority isn't a fucking "authority" ?

He was certainly somebody who exercised some critical thinking and that's why I invoked him.

...

But I don't need to invoke shulgin's credentials. What he said stands by itself. The big bang is absurd, creationist bullshit.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it any more true :)

Right back at you =) Parroting what the current 'scientific' mafia says doesn't make it true AND shows that you are willing to parrot stuff you don't understand.

...

...

So now you are saying, what, relativity is bullshit too? Lol.

Newtonian physics don't keep satellites rotating around the earth,

eh?

You cut part of your own quote out, where you called some of Einstein's shit absurd.

Yes, but my "eh?" is directed at the bit about newton. Not sure what you mean.

...

Again, how is it 'useful'. Ah you mean, it allows governmetn parasites from academia to steal millions per year doing useless 'research'. Well, it's certainly 'useful' in that utilitarian sense...like stolen money is 'useful' to thieves.

Knowledge is useful in and of itself,

ajaja - did you miss the fact that you just asserted(again) what you're supposed to prove? What KNOWLEDGE? The big bang tale is not knowledge. It's creationist bullshit.

by whatever dirty means it may be acquired. I don't find academia quite so pointless as you, although I can see your point.

I don't think academia pointless. It's certainly not pointless for the powers that be since their technocratic fascism relies heavily on 'academia'. And some of their knowdledge is actual knowdlege. Paid by murdering brown children.

Thats it from me. Bed, and work tomorrow.

Cheers John

HI JOHN XOXO -------- Original Message -------- On Nov 6, 2019, 5:15 PM, John Newman wrote:

...

On Nov 6, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 08:03:06 +0000 John Newman wrote:

...

...

I notice you ignored the question. So again, where's the center of the universe.

Within our light cone, I don't think the universe has a center, per se.

what? Light cone?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

...

...

I don't really remember, and im tired ;)

ha - you've forgotten your brainwashing? Looks like your govt schools need MORE FUNDING =)

Lol. I don't consider math, computer science, or astronomy subjects susceptible to brainwashing. It's not dogma, the shit advances & changes iteratively, over time, with the work of researchers & the err “scientific mafia” ;)

...

...

...

...

Shulgin is probably my favorite chemist, but he's not a physicist ;)

Neither are you. On the other hand, shulgin was no doubt a 'scientist'...Then again, I'm just playing your recourse-to-authority game.

Lol, neither are you!

Right. And? I mean, come on. Your original objection to shulgin is clearly null and void. You didn't read what he wrote, you just made an irrelevant comment about him.

My objection hasn't changed, and it isn't void. Shulgin's a smart guy, so what? A lot of smart people get carried away when they dabble.

...

...

It's my game now that I point out your authority isn't a fucking "authority" ?

He was certainly somebody who exercised some critical thinking and that's why I invoked him.

...

...

But I don't need to invoke shulgin's credentials. What he said stands by itself. The big bang is absurd, creationist bullshit.

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it any more true :)

Right back at you =) Parroting what the current 'scientific' mafia says doesn't make it true AND shows that you are willing to parrot stuff you don't understand.

Ok, I’ll give you this one. You’re definitely the expert on stuff you don’t understand :)

...

...

...

...

So now you are saying, what, relativity is bullshit too? Lol.

Newtonian physics don't keep satellites rotating around the earth,

eh?

You cut part of your own quote out, where you called some of Einstein's shit absurd.

Yes, but my "eh?" is directed at the bit about newton. Not sure what you mean.

What I said about you not believing in relativity was in response to this comment, which you (accidentally, I assume) snipped -

...

right, all the nonsense about 'curved space time' paves the way for more pseudo scientific tales.

You called ‘curved space time’ nonsense, which is the same as calling the theory of relativity nonsense. Which, unless Newton was a fucking crazy jew-kkkristian too (he actually was lol, he spent more time on alchemy & bible studies then he did on math), leaves Newtonian physics.

...

...

...

...

Again, how is it 'useful'. Ah you mean, it allows governmetn parasites from academia to steal millions per year doing useless 'research'. Well, it's certainly 'useful' in that utilitarian sense...like stolen money is 'useful' to thieves.

Knowledge is useful in and of itself,

ajaja - did you miss the fact that you just asserted(again) what you're supposed to prove? What KNOWLEDGE? The big bang tale is not knowledge. It's creationist bullshit.

Nah.

...

...

by whatever dirty means it may be acquired. I don't find academia quite so pointless as you, although I can see your point.

I don't think academia pointless. It's certainly not pointless for the powers that be since their technocratic fascism relies heavily on 'academia'. And some of their knowdledge is actual knowdlege. Paid by murdering brown children.

Yeah, I suppose we should just blow up all the schools, and burn all the books. I know you’re thinking “only the books written by someone with a JEWISH surname” but, no, better to burn them all. This is the way forward, again I have to agree :)

Peace (in the middle east), John

...

...

Thats it from me. Bed, and work tomorrow.

Cheers John

On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:49:20PM -0600, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

Lol. I don't consider math, computer science, or astronomy subjects susceptible to brainwashing. It's not dogma, the shit advances & changes iteratively, over time, with the work of researchers & the err “scientific mafia” ;)

Math and comp sci are TIGHT, but do not lump astronomy into those fields. Can you explain transparency of the lens? ANSWER: NO YOU CANNOT.

Astronomy pretty much depended on the lens and it encodes a deep ontology with respect to this universe and GOD lerself (my substitute for the omnigendered pronoun of GOD).

Trust me, no one in science has ever explained it. Why does it have a preferred axiis when your eyes look at it? That's just one problem with treating it all as perfect as digital logic and math.

So, once you get out of pure math and digital logic, you have entered the realm of MODELS. To be sure though, all our math relies on the unprovable premises which co-evolved with consciousness itself (like A=A) otherwise there would be an endless set of maths.

Actually, there are endless sets of maths. Maths is quite broad orly ... bends the mind just exploring little corners of it all, often ending in "sheesh, my achey breaky brain needs a coffee". ;)