Back to Home

Astronomy Discussion Forums

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Hate To Have You Think I Ignore You.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on October 17, 2002 16:55:23 UTC

Hi Mike,

The last serious thing I remember receiving from you was a comment on the fact that you wanted to look more closely at my paper before you made any further comments. I have no knowledge that you have or have not done that.

I am afraid you will not find anyone who can give you a well thought out analysis of my paper as no one has given it any serious thought (except maybe Paul). Aurino sees a certain factor which is apparently beyond Harv's comprehension: that any explanation of everything must start from nothing. But he cannot face the inevitable results of my logic; he thinks that to do so would destroy everything he believes necessary to life as he knows it. He is reality-phobic.

It is clear that no one but Paul has any understanding of the logic presented by my paper. Let me try to put forward what I have discovered in another fashion. Let us start by assuming that we wish to explain a sequenced set of random numbers. When I use the word explain, let us say that what I mean is that I am going to make up a story which will be consistent with that particular set of numbers. If the numbers are truly random, I can certainly make up any story I wish as the issue of the story being correct is a non issue. Random means there is no explanation; even Aurino will agree with that. A self consistent story can provide but one service; that is, it can provide a convenient mental catalog of events, but no more. If the story is 100% internally self consistent, there can exist no proof that it is wrong. These are simple facts which no thinking person can deny.

First I will point out that, if that set of numbers is sufficiently large (and think of "large" as very very large), it is very probable that I will be able to find sub sets of those numbers which appear to be in a large number of those sequenced sets. This is particularly true if I include as "the same" those numbers which, as a group, can be seen as having some identifiable pattern. For example suppose I look for two numbers which differ by some unknown amount, and a third which is about half way between those two? Do you really believe that you can construct a set of numbers so large as to have 10^20 numbers in each of the sequenced sets without having that pattern appear somewhere in a large number of those sequenced sets. In fact, I could say that you could not construct a set of three numbers which would not include the pattern I just described ("about" being a very loose term). There exists a proof (which I have heretofore not mentioned because I don't have a reference to it) which essentially says that no matter what pattern one chooses, there exists a number such that it is impossible to construct a set of numbers greater than that number which will not contain the specified pattern. (The definition of what is meant by a "pattern" is quite specific in that proof.)

What my paper shows is that, in any sequence of sets of random numbers, if one can find any definable sets of numbers (any patterns which can be cataloged or named) which appear in a reasonably large number of those sets of random numbers, one will find that those sets have a very high probability of obeying the laws of physics. That is, if you see a certain pattern within a greater pattern such that the average of the first pattern is sequentially larger (relative to the average of the greater pattern) from set to set of that ordered sequence, there is a very high probability that the next observation of said averages will continue the pattern (particularly if your definition of "probability" is based on how many times it happens in your observations). Now if one calls those specific patterns "objects" and the numbers coordinates in a coordinate system, what I have just pointed out becomes "objects in motion tend to remain in motion". Newton's first law is a statement made true by the definition of "objects", the definition of "motion" and the definition of "no interaction" (interactions are cases where the rule isn't followed).

Now that is a very simple minded example of the phenomena I am speaking of. What I have discovered is that any sequenced set of random numbers can be seen as a collection of objects which obey the standard laws of physics (particularly true when you allow the existence of hypothetical objects which obey those laws). If proof that the hypothetical objects exist amounts to the fact that they obey the laws of physics, then the whole story becomes a circular discourse on "how the tiger got its spots".

What this all says is that the appearance of order is no proof of order at all.

As I said to Aurino once, any explanation is just a story. Truth of the story is completely beside the point; the real issue is how valuable is the story for the purpose of keeping track of the probabilities of the patterns you have already seen (how good a catalog does it make). Who cares how your subconscious managed to come up with your particular story; if you like its success rate at parsing the universe you find yourself in, great! But don't try to tell me you "know" what you are talking about. Its accuracy is no defense of its truth.

Aurino: As I said, it's not a matter of belief. If the universe had no intrinsic constraints, then how do we explain the fact that most of our actions are constrained? Why can't we fly, teleport, talk to the dead, read people's minds, etc., just by thinking about it? Even a newborn understands that the universe has rules. If the universe had no rules, why did God give us reason?

As I said, it is entirely a matter of belief. I have shown exactly what is to be expected if the universe had no intrinsic constraints. I have presumed no constraints and deduced most of modern physics. This implies that we "can't fly, teleport, talk to the dead, read people's minds, etc." because these ideas are not consistent with modern physics: i.e., they are not valuable ideas when it comes to correlating random numbers.

Mike: Are you, Dr. Dick, or Anyone who agrees with his thesis, saying that our physics is a single version of several possible versions, and that by being internally consistent and workable, and that the selection of this version depends completely on our minds, it reveals the road we took in our minds rather than the actual shape of existence?

Since, to my knowledge, no one exists who fully agrees with my thesis, I will give you my take on this question. What ever image exists in your mind as to what the universe is, if that image is internally self consistent, it must be built of fundamental entities which can be seen as obeying modern physics. Thus there exists a common ground for communication of our "knowledge" of what is (that common ground is called modern physics or science). What I have shown is a proof that the existence of that common ground proves absolutely nothing about reality. In fact, if we really want to understand "reality" we need to look more carefully at the cases where science fails: cases where our "stories" do not work.

With regard to that issue there is one very large segment of our common "knowledge" which clearly appears to violate common science. Is it possible that our subconscious assigns the label "meaningless" to anything which cannot be fit into that common ground for communication? Just exactly what is a dream? Can it be seen as that set of real experiences which do not fit our "beliefs"? Hey, do a little thinking once in a while. Arguing belief is a rather worthless exercise. Just go with it, but don't take it seriously; it just isn't a serious issue.

I would like to point out a very important observation. Pseudo intellectuals usually want two things to be accepted: first, that an understanding of mathematics is not necessary to logical thought (I say, if they cannot understand mathematics, they are certainly possess a severely limited intellect) and second, they want their solutions to be intuitively acceptable. That second is a very telling thing. Intuition is source of information which is otherwise unexplainable: i.e., impossible to explain. This is the source of information I have repeatedly called my subconscious. I admit that this source is an extremely powerful source of usable information but it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called well thought out.

Squirrels intuitively understand enough of Newton's mechanics to perform astonishing feats of physical coordination. Intuition is present in any surviving animal; survival itself has demanded that. Furthermore, it should be very clear that intuition is essential to that survival; as much to us as it is to that squirrel. But humans have a capability not available to squirrels; we can think things out logically (at least some of us can). One of the problems with the world is that most people put themselves on exactly the same intellectual level as the squirrels and they want us to believe that reliance on intuition is thinking.

One of the major problems with the world is the fact that, on occasion, someone has thought something out and discovered that what they believed was false. They convince others of that fact and the next thing you see is a burst of belief that, if you think things out, you can answer all the important questions. That is a patently false belief which soon becomes quite obvious -- the so called "thinkers" inevitably lead society down a path of pseudo logic to conclusions contrary to survival.

Then the ignorant who clearly "know" intuitively that the rules passed down by their fathers and their father's fathers are correct bring their sway to the world and the pendulum swings back to superstition. So the pendulum swings; first one way and then the other. Neither is right. The only rational solution is to leave your survival to the training a million years of survival has provided, but don't stop thinking, you might accidentally see something worthwhile.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins