He did not want to use it against NATO troops, what is even stupider, he wanted to use it against Ukrainian troops. Considering how close Luhansk and Donetsk to Russian territories including quite a big city of Rostov, if there were fallout, good chance it would be also over Russia.
As for defending the Ukraine in return of becoming non-nuclear state, it was not NATO, it was US, GB and Russia in Budapest Memorandum of 1994. After taking over the Crimea peninsula, Russian Premier Medvedev effectively reneged of their responsibilities, stating that the memorandum meant to protect the Ukraine against the third countries and not the guarantors themselves.
What are you talking about? It is PI with a period.
Word Mark PI Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 20090622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100622 Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM Serial Number 85785006 Filing Date November 21, 2012 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition November 12, 2013 Registration Number 4473631 Registration Date January 28, 2014 Owner (REGISTRANT) Paul Ingrisano AKA PI Productions Corp INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1933 73rd street brooklyn NEW YORK 11204 Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period. Type of Mark TRADEMARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
This is the coolest picture I have seen for a while.
If you look where we are, it is about on the same level as if there was no protection at all.
What it means, is that the current system exists solely for the benefits of the patent lawyers. Moreover, if the protection is strengthened it will reduce the innovation further and thus diminish lawyers' area of application. If the protection is relaxed the innovation will boost but it also will leave some money on the table to be converted into actual innovator's revenue.
So the level of protection is stabilized at the level where all the innovation benefits are fully converted into patent lawyer's benefits thus maximizing their revenue from bang for buck perspective without being actually beneficial to a patent holder.
But that conclusion should be pretty obvious, is not it?
You are almost correct. What we percieve as energy is a difference between the potential of the given space volume and the base potential. The trick is that we have absolutely no physical means to discern what the absolute value of the base potential is (I am not even sure, you can meaningfully ask a question like this.)
Therefore, if/when the base potential of the space-time continuum drops, all of a sudden we have some energy surplus which could be converted to matter. So with each cycle we are descending deeper and deeper into potential (not gravitational) well. However, since this well is bottomless we can apply/rinse/repeat the whole procedure indefinitely.
It is like a bully after shaking school kids for years of their breakfast money donated $1.50 to support a school exhibition dedicated to achievements of those he used to terrorize.
It appears that willfull infringement is a criminal offence.
I shamelessly cut and pasted the following from the Y!. Thanks are going to elcorton:
---
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
Saying that is like saying that human thoughts are defined in words. True, most of the thoughts may be adequately expressed in this way, but the lingua is not the only way of expression, albeit, arguably, is the most effective one. However, my point is that the only reason the Laws of Nature are defined mathematically is because we are using math to build a model of reality. Newton's model is/was different from Einstein's model, the modelling law has been changed but the reality always stayed the same.
There is zero evidence to the contrary.
Are you sure? Goedel Theorem states that any formal system of non-trivial complexity is either incomplete or inconsistent. The reality, OTOH, by definition is complete and also seems to be consistent (at least, there is no evidence to the contrary.) If only by this virtue of the reality the best we can hope is only building mathematical models with assimptotically better accuracy.
No theory currently known to the mankind offers complete description of reality. For example, the most precise theory known to us - Quantum Theory is incomplete, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also breaks up on quantum level. Thus, contrary to your assertion, there is zero evidence that the reality follows strictly any mathematical model.
Electromagnetic force is transmitted by photons (remember those wavy lines between interacting electrons' pathes on Feinman diagrams?)
About electrons being bosons. We have elements with different chemical properties precisely because any two electrons being fermions can not share the same quantum state inside the atom (Pauli's Principle,) which forces them to occupy states with higher and higher energies thus giving rise to the chemical diversity.
Finally, wave particle-duality has nothing to do with the particle being bosons or fermions. It arises from combination of two simple formulae E=mc^2 and E=h nu. Solve them for nu, then divide speed of light c by it and you'll get the corresponding wavelength. Using this simple procedure you can find wavelengthes of anything (even your boss - just to show her how insignificant she is as a wave:).
I am not sure that you understand what you are talking about.
Glass is a fluid (a liquid,) it has never ever been a solid. The difference between glass and water is superficial and it is only due to difference in viscosity. Glass only looks to us solid because of specifics of our time perception. If we could percieve microseconds as we do years, water would have looked like a solid to us, if, for example, you tried to break it.
I hope you will not insist that the state of matter depends on our subjective perception of time.
Solids are crystals, molecules of which keep order on distances much greater then distance between the neighboring molecules.
Order distance in liquids (fluids) is comparable with the distance between the molecules. And, finally, gases do not have order at all.
I am not aware that there is any other definition of solids, liquids and gases. OTOH, if you tell me how to tell a liquid from a fluid, perhaps, I'll learn something new.
complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman";
Oh, really. The full definition is complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust". And three paragraphs later: "Trust is established through experience." You lost once you mentioned polaroids. If you had faith in you wife you would have said that they are fake instead of filing divorce papers.
Well, they still can not compete against the newest invention - 'Reality Shows' - the cheapest and cheesiest of them all.
Furthermore, by appealling to most primal traits of human character they gather audiences not only of sizes any sci-fi show could not even start dreaming of, but also those audiences are more prone to the kind of ads normally placed in those shows.
However, if the other party gets really upset, they can try to 'pierce corporate veil'. I.e. try to prove that the individuals in charge of the first company were pursuing their private interests at the expenses of the company they were in charge of.
Then the company gets of the hook, and personal responsibility of its senior officers kicks in. It's a rare situation, but it can happen, right?
So even if I could theoretically acheive an excess of 100 WPM with, say Dvorak, the time it would take to learn it, as well as the non-portability of the skill (what are the odds of finding another Dvorak keyboard wherever you go), are not worth it.
Man, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I have switched to Dvorak about 3 years ago so I am talking from my own experience. First, it takes about two weeks to re-train your motor skills to a different layout even for a klutz like myself. Second, in both Windows and Linux (can not say much about Mac, but more than sure that in Mac OSes too) you can set up Dvorak keyboard layout through the Control Panel or its equivalent.
While I admit that I am not typing faster than when I was using QWERTY (most probably, because my dexterity limits kick in long before those of difference between QWERTY and Dvorak,) I can safely say that hand/wrist strain is much less when you are using Dvorak, so your motivation is your closeness to the carpal syndrome.
What he meant is that these "predictors" seem to have a preference for events that have a mediatic impact on the West.
While I am not trying to cast any judgement yet, is it possible that the 'eggs' react not on the events themselves but on global reaction on them (it's Global Consciousness after all, right?) which is much stronger for media assisted ones?
The litmus test would be, of course, to fake global media coverage of some dramatic but fictional event (O. Welles' 'War of the Worlds' broadcast comes to mind) and see what happens (to the 'eggs', at least:).)
Provided that these deviations are really happening, it is still difficult to say anything without information how the 'eggs' are distributed around the globe and how they react on various events (for example, it is interesting to know whether the 'eggs' in India and/or Pakistan react on various Kashmir events, while the 'eggs' in Europe and North America remain 'silent'?)
In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
IANAL, however, it looks like if a work of art is displayed in a public place, it is OK to make pictures of it.
A (very) superficial answer (you might want to read at least GrokLaw to find out more) is:
Of course, it can be used as an argument, and judging by SCO vs. IBM case you would be amazed what else can be used as arguments (including, for example, such as some statement in the contract actually was meant to mean its opposite and the current statement is a "scrivener's error.") However, being a very circumstantial argument akin to 'the reason we can not find Iraq's WMDs is because they are hidden very well,' it can hardly stay on its own.
IIRC, BSOD originally meant Black Screen of Death and was a feature of MS Windows 3.0.
With MS Windows 3.1, MS moved from black/white title bars to blue/grey ones and also used grey-on-blue instead of grey-on-black in BSOD. It was a purely marketing decision because Black SOD looked too gruesome.
Why in hell does every Linux fanboy assume that all Windows processes run in kernel mode? Even Windows Explorer on NT4/Win2k/XP/2003 runs in user space, buddy.
First of all nobody has ever said that all processes are running in kernel mode.
What is being said that any process from the user space can be running in kernel mode. And the reason for this is because any glitch with any of Direct<$shit> technologies immediately brings BSOD, sonny. You can try to play any semantics games you want (no pun intended,) with what is running where but the simple fact that a code supposedly running in user space can cause BSOD indicates that it is just that -- semantics games.
OK, my simple theory why it is happening lately is following. While we had lasers available to the general public for a while -- they were mostly RED lasers. As we all know red laser beam is virtually invisible in the air, so pointing it to an aircraft is like using a camera with a broken visor.
The recent 'sudden rush' of activity can be explained by arelatively recent availability to the general public of the GREEN beam lasers, which have two distinct features - a) their beam's reach is much longer (IIRC 10,000 ft, comparing to red lasers measly 3,000 ft,) and, the most important, b) the beam is visible in the air, which makes pointing it to remote objects much easier.
So, with a 3,000 ft beam, you could at most point to a Cessna right above you and only if you are extremely lucky. OTOH, sitting on the bank of Passaic river near EWR you can point a 10,000 ft green laser to a landing craft flying right at you when its angular motion is negligible.
So, I believe that, unfortunately for us all, there is some grain of truth in what we are told.
The infinities are nothing to do with nature - they are to do with the mathematics that are used to model nature. They result from the way we model forces
We are agree here. Seems like infinities are not part of the nature. And if we agree that we can build the mathematical model of the nature, this model shall not contain (at least not cancelled out) infinities, which necessarily introduces non-infinitely small regions of space-time continuum. So it does not make sense to ask about structure or processes inside such regions. You, probably, feel it too, that is why you have put (at least in some sence) qualification to term 'vibration'. My take on it that they vibrate in the same sence as Standard Model particles spin.
About our theory of everyhing (TOE) choices. You see, at the end we do have different particles, so it does not look like we have too many choices how to describe them, it is either fundamentally different entities and we have to explain how they came into being, or, it is the same fundamental entity existing in different states. Latter case seems to be preferrable, I guess, for aesthetical and philosophical reasons.
As I understand Mark Hadley's ideas, he tries to describe particles as distortions of the space-time so the 'moving parts' are also in there in which case it might be more or less equivalent to string theory proposal that space-time consists of strings.
If you asked me what TOE may look like, I would go with a like of the holographic principle, where notions of 3+1 space-time continuum, matter, energy and so on are 'generated' as the natural result of our attempt to acquire information about our surroundings, i.e. it is not that nature does, indeed, work this way, but rather is our (observer's) way to cognize the information coherently.
Any model of the fundamental entities in the universe which includes properties such as length, ends, vibration and tension can hardly be a true representation of the building blocks of matter.
This is a somewhat strange position (even for a philosopher,) since the whole philosophy of physics is, that it is infinities that are not natural. That is the problem with infinitely small electron, infinitely small distances etc. Which means that even fundamental building blocks of Nature must have property as finite spacial extent, energy density or information content.
Re:I know this isn't a book review, but...
on
100 Years of Einstein
·
· Score: 3, Funny
AFAIK, any theory requires assumptions. Even in math, where they also called axioms.
For example, in Standard Model you have to make up 19 different shits in your terminology (particle masses and various physical constants) to make it working. String theory requires only one make up shit parameter to make it working (string tension, IIRC.)
Slashdot Mirror
He did not want to use it against NATO troops, what is even stupider, he wanted to use it against Ukrainian troops. Considering how close Luhansk and Donetsk to Russian territories including quite a big city of Rostov, if there were fallout, good chance it would be also over Russia.
As for defending the Ukraine in return of becoming non-nuclear state, it was not NATO, it was US, GB and Russia in Budapest Memorandum of 1994. After taking over the Crimea peninsula, Russian Premier Medvedev effectively reneged of their responsibilities, stating that the memorandum meant to protect the Ukraine against the third countries and not the guarantors themselves.
What are you talking about? It is PI with a period.
Word Mark PI
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Athletic apparel, namely, shirts, pants, jackets, footwear, hats and caps, athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 20090622. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20100622
Mark Drawing Code (5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Serial Number 85785006
Filing Date November 21, 2012
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition November 12, 2013
Registration Number 4473631
Registration Date January 28, 2014
Owner (REGISTRANT) Paul Ingrisano AKA PI Productions Corp INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1933 73rd street brooklyn NEW YORK 11204
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister
Do not tell me this is his official title
If you look where we are, it is about on the same level as if there was no protection at all.
What it means, is that the current system exists solely for the benefits of the patent lawyers. Moreover, if the protection is strengthened it will reduce the innovation further and thus diminish lawyers' area of application. If the protection is relaxed the innovation will boost but it also will leave some money on the table to be converted into actual innovator's revenue.
So the level of protection is stabilized at the level where all the innovation benefits are fully converted into patent lawyer's benefits thus maximizing their revenue from bang for buck perspective without being actually beneficial to a patent holder.
But that conclusion should be pretty obvious, is not it?
Therefore, if/when the base potential of the space-time continuum drops, all of a sudden we have some energy surplus which could be converted to matter. So with each cycle we are descending deeper and deeper into potential (not gravitational) well. However, since this well is bottomless we can apply/rinse/repeat the whole procedure indefinitely.
It is like a bully after shaking school kids for years of their breakfast money donated $1.50 to support a school exhibition dedicated to achievements of those he used to terrorize.
It appears that willfull infringement is a criminal offence.
I shamelessly cut and pasted the following from the Y!. Thanks are going to elcorton:
---
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.
---
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de17/usc_sec_17_00000506----000-.html
---
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
---
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco de18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html
Saying that is like saying that human thoughts are defined in words. True, most of the thoughts may be adequately expressed in this way, but the lingua is not the only way of expression, albeit, arguably, is the most effective one. However, my point is that the only reason the Laws of Nature are defined mathematically is because we are using math to build a model of reality. Newton's model is/was different from Einstein's model, the modelling law has been changed but the reality always stayed the same.
There is zero evidence to the contrary.
Are you sure? Goedel Theorem states that any formal system of non-trivial complexity is either incomplete or inconsistent. The reality, OTOH, by definition is complete and also seems to be consistent (at least, there is no evidence to the contrary.) If only by this virtue of the reality the best we can hope is only building mathematical models with assimptotically better accuracy.
No theory currently known to the mankind offers complete description of reality. For example, the most precise theory known to us - Quantum Theory is incomplete, Einstein's Theory of Relativity also breaks up on quantum level. Thus, contrary to your assertion, there is zero evidence that the reality follows strictly any mathematical model.
Electromagnetic force is transmitted by photons (remember those wavy lines between interacting electrons' pathes on Feinman diagrams?)
About electrons being bosons. We have elements with different chemical properties precisely because any two electrons being fermions can not share the same quantum state inside the atom (Pauli's Principle,) which forces them to occupy states with higher and higher energies thus giving rise to the chemical diversity.
Finally, wave particle-duality has nothing to do with the particle being bosons or fermions. It arises from combination of two simple formulae E=mc^2 and E=h nu. Solve them for nu, then divide speed of light c by it and you'll get the corresponding wavelength. Using this simple procedure you can find wavelengthes of anything (even your boss - just to show her how insignificant she is as a wave :).
Glass is a fluid (a liquid,) it has never ever been a solid. The difference between glass and water is superficial and it is only due to difference in viscosity. Glass only looks to us solid because of specifics of our time perception. If we could percieve microseconds as we do years, water would have looked like a solid to us, if, for example, you tried to break it.
I hope you will not insist that the state of matter depends on our subjective perception of time.
Solids are crystals, molecules of which keep order on distances much greater then distance between the neighboring molecules.
Order distance in liquids (fluids) is comparable with the distance between the molecules. And, finally, gases do not have order at all.
I am not aware that there is any other definition of solids, liquids and gases. OTOH, if you tell me how to tell a liquid from a fluid, perhaps, I'll learn something new.
Oh, really. The full definition is complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust". And three paragraphs later: "Trust is established through experience." You lost once you mentioned polaroids. If you had faith in you wife you would have said that they are fake instead of filing divorce papers.
It is warm to my heart to see that 25 centuries old greatest philosophical ideas are now quoted as an obligatory homage to Matrix movies.
Furthermore, by appealling to most primal traits of human character they gather audiences not only of sizes any sci-fi show could not even start dreaming of, but also those audiences are more prone to the kind of ads normally placed in those shows.
However, if the other party gets really upset, they can try to 'pierce corporate veil'. I.e. try to prove that the individuals in charge of the first company were pursuing their private interests at the expenses of the company they were in charge of.
Then the company gets of the hook, and personal responsibility of its senior officers kicks in. It's a rare situation, but it can happen, right?
Also I tip my hat to moderators. You've made my day.
Man, I wish you knew what you were talking about. I have switched to Dvorak about 3 years ago so I am talking from my own experience. First, it takes about two weeks to re-train your motor skills to a different layout even for a klutz like myself. Second, in both Windows and Linux (can not say much about Mac, but more than sure that in Mac OSes too) you can set up Dvorak keyboard layout through the Control Panel or its equivalent.
While I admit that I am not typing faster than when I was using QWERTY (most probably, because my dexterity limits kick in long before those of difference between QWERTY and Dvorak,) I can safely say that hand/wrist strain is much less when you are using Dvorak, so your motivation is your closeness to the carpal syndrome.
While I am not trying to cast any judgement yet, is it possible that the 'eggs' react not on the events themselves but on global reaction on them (it's Global Consciousness after all, right?) which is much stronger for media assisted ones?
The litmus test would be, of course, to fake global media coverage of some dramatic but fictional event (O. Welles' 'War of the Worlds' broadcast comes to mind) and see what happens (to the 'eggs', at least:).)
Provided that these deviations are really happening, it is still difficult to say anything without information how the 'eggs' are distributed around the globe and how they react on various events (for example, it is interesting to know whether the 'eggs' in India and/or Pakistan react on various Kashmir events, while the 'eggs' in Europe and North America remain 'silent'?)
17 USC 113 (c).
In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
IANAL, however, it looks like if a work of art is displayed in a public place, it is OK to make pictures of it.
Of course, it can be used as an argument, and judging by SCO vs. IBM case you would be amazed what else can be used as arguments (including, for example, such as some statement in the contract actually was meant to mean its opposite and the current statement is a "scrivener's error.") However, being a very circumstantial argument akin to 'the reason we can not find Iraq's WMDs is because they are hidden very well,' it can hardly stay on its own.
With MS Windows 3.1, MS moved from black/white title bars to blue/grey ones and also used grey-on-blue instead of grey-on-black in BSOD. It was a purely marketing decision because Black SOD looked too gruesome.
First of all nobody has ever said that all processes are running in kernel mode.
What is being said that any process from the user space can be running in kernel mode. And the reason for this is because any glitch with any of Direct<$shit> technologies immediately brings BSOD, sonny. You can try to play any semantics games you want (no pun intended,) with what is running where but the simple fact that a code supposedly running in user space can cause BSOD indicates that it is just that -- semantics games.
The recent 'sudden rush' of activity can be explained by arelatively recent availability to the general public of the GREEN beam lasers, which have two distinct features - a) their beam's reach is much longer (IIRC 10,000 ft, comparing to red lasers measly 3,000 ft,) and, the most important, b) the beam is visible in the air, which makes pointing it to remote objects much easier.
So, with a 3,000 ft beam, you could at most point to a Cessna right above you and only if you are extremely lucky. OTOH, sitting on the bank of Passaic river near EWR you can point a 10,000 ft green laser to a landing craft flying right at you when its angular motion is negligible.
So, I believe that, unfortunately for us all, there is some grain of truth in what we are told.
We are agree here. Seems like infinities are not part of the nature. And if we agree that we can build the mathematical model of the nature, this model shall not contain (at least not cancelled out) infinities, which necessarily introduces non-infinitely small regions of space-time continuum. So it does not make sense to ask about structure or processes inside such regions. You, probably, feel it too, that is why you have put (at least in some sence) qualification to term 'vibration'. My take on it that they vibrate in the same sence as Standard Model particles spin.
About our theory of everyhing (TOE) choices. You see, at the end we do have different particles, so it does not look like we have too many choices how to describe them, it is either fundamentally different entities and we have to explain how they came into being, or, it is the same fundamental entity existing in different states. Latter case seems to be preferrable, I guess, for aesthetical and philosophical reasons.
As I understand Mark Hadley's ideas, he tries to describe particles as distortions of the space-time so the 'moving parts' are also in there in which case it might be more or less equivalent to string theory proposal that space-time consists of strings.
If you asked me what TOE may look like, I would go with a like of the holographic principle, where notions of 3+1 space-time continuum, matter, energy and so on are 'generated' as the natural result of our attempt to acquire information about our surroundings, i.e. it is not that nature does, indeed, work this way, but rather is our (observer's) way to cognize the information coherently.
This is a somewhat strange position (even for a philosopher,) since the whole philosophy of physics is, that it is infinities that are not natural. That is the problem with infinitely small electron, infinitely small distances etc. Which means that even fundamental building blocks of Nature must have property as finite spacial extent, energy density or information content.
For example, in Standard Model you have to make up 19 different shits in your terminology (particle masses and various physical constants) to make it working. String theory requires only one make up shit parameter to make it working (string tension, IIRC.)