/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11373808

Let's take the number 8 - can we reduce the multiplier to its numerological equivalent before calculating the result?

8 * 651654 = 5213232.

But what if we reduce 651564 to its numerological equivalent, which would be 6+5+1+5+6+4 = 11+6+10 = 27 = 9?

8 * 9 = 72 = 7+2 = 9.

5213232 = 5+2+1+3+2+3+2 = 11+7= 18= 1+8 = 9.

Wow. Is that a fluke?

>>11307840
>the only way to prove that there is such an omnipresent observer would be the acknowledgement of every sentient being in the universe

That is, even if one had objective proof of such a point of observation for which all photons were rendered as either wave or particle (thus violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle by being able to identify both position and velocity of a given object), it would have to be communicated in a way that was comprehensible to a consciousness that does not include the principle of a binary relationship between particle and wave, and thus would fail to be a universal observation for any sentient being that lacked such knowledge.

>got a 88% on the midterm
>just need a 52% on final to pass
>still anxiously grinding the night before

Why can't I just turn my fucking brain off sometimes? Maybe just the anxiety factory