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
Investigating Dr.Dick's Recent Revelations

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on October 20, 2002 08:33:34 UTC

Suppose you shuffle a pack of cards (call their order now "arbitrary", say).

Suppose you shuffle the pack of cards again (call this new order an "arbitrary" representation of the first "arbitrary" order, say.

Now suppose a pattern just happened to appear after both shufflings (but in different places in the pack,say). Suppose that pattern was "a King card above a Jack card".

Dr.Dick seems to be claiming that such a recurring pattern obeys physics laws.

But if the average (from frequency) of getting a (King, Jack) pattern is greater than the average of some larger pattern; then by the very definition of "average" and of "probability" it is by definition that you have a high probability of again seeing a (King, Jack) pattern.

Now if a (King, Jack) pattern just happens to turn up; but maybe elsewhere in the pack; the "elsewhere in the pack" is effectively a 3rd view of the shuffles, from the "King, Jack" perspective?

Because the cards were shuffled once, and (King,Jack) appeared somewhere. The cards were shuffled again, and (King, Jack) appeared somewhere. And (King,Jack) jumped from one somewhere to a different somewhere.

Cards shuffled; got King,Jack.
Cards shuffled; got King,Jack.
So King,Jack also like stayed net-negative-shuffled to new location in pack for King,Jack.

That is, to focus on "King,Jack" requires a 3rd implied shuffle-perspective of the cards to say have King, Jack as a stationary pattern viewing the 2 shuffles?

Argument here is wobbly possibly.


Alexander acknowledged that "three compensating accelerations to create stationary object" is an almost perfect model of reality. Seems like you can obtain physics laws from 3 compensating shufflings to create "stationary pattern".

Dr.Dick said (to Mike) that "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)".

Of course the next observation of both averages will probably continue the first pattern as it is by definition occuring more often than the second pattern. So can Dr.Dick address Yanniru's interpretation of his work as a "sampling" theory?

Also could Dr. Dick face the issue where I and Harv alerted him to the fact that just because a symmetry occurs after data transmission it does not follow that the symmetry is from the transmission and not from the original data?
In light of card shuffling; he may have meant to qualify by saying "apparant data transmission between random data patterns"?

Also could Dr.Dick address the issue of the optionality of saying "moon" "made of" "cheese" requires re-assigning "cheese" to fit current assignings of "rock"?

And could Dr.Dick please address the issue: that given his claim that he will leave the examination of the validity of math to others; his philosophical claims on knowledge-reliability coming from his paper must be severely qualified by the potentially weak foundations of his paper (if Godel has shown math to be weak, where does that leave Dr. Dick's claims?)

Actually Paul correctly identifies Godel's puzzle as a category-mixing error I think; quite possibly Dr. Dick's conclusions (of "unreliability of knowledge) are another way of re-finding the Godel claims (of limits to math).Dr.Dick's claims might be applied to the math foundations of his claims? Dr.Dick re-discovering Godel issues?

Any thoughts?


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 1994-2018 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