General Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Cool Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on February 5, 2004 06:26:12 UTC

May I quote:

"Well, actually I have a more fundamental question. How is the random, self organizing, self referential physics in Cahill's computer work connected to the Cahill extension of Newtonian Physics to non-spherical symmetries? I hope some smart person can answer that for me. Perhaps an email to cahill is called for. But it is better to first read the appropriate papers."

What does "random" mean?

A mathematician I know agrees "there is no such thing as randomness".

Dr. Richard Stafford tells us "random is when you don't know how you get something" if I recall right.

May I suggest that when we talk about "random" we are talking about a group of options where any choice may be made in the circumstance so far described: so we are talking about a "menu".

The very word "random" suggests some unknown influence at work so a boundary surrounding something. If the something is seen as self-organising (can choose two ways of dividing say? so has 3-ness of 4-ness?) and self-referential (has 3-ness) then this could be called a singular definition of "spherical geometry in 3-D space" where anything can be translated into such a geometry that is described by "random; self-organising; and self-referential".

Having made a 3-D sphere "black hole" then I guess Cahill can "vacuum up" other geometries!

The Newtonian aspect becomes simple Newtonian comparisons between what I suspect is Cahill's "shpere singularity" (effectively his own version of Dr. Stafford's generalised 4-geometry, and Lee Smolin's quantised volume and quantised area) translation of one non-spherical geometry to another.

In other words:

a free optional sphere in 3-D that is so broadly defined as to be "singular" and be mathematically negative (negates mathematics): allows various non-spherical geometries to be mapped into this and simply compared in a Newtonian relativity way of simple comparison.

Instead of Lee Smolin's "quantised area and quantised volume" or Dr. Stafford's "quantised 4-ness?" multi-dimensional polygons? we have Cahill's area-volume "wave function" where one geometry's version of area-volume can be converted simply into another's...?

(I haven't seen Cahill's work).

In fact if "mass" is "uncertainty" then "random" may be like a default description of something incorporating uncertainty; maybe it's like "inertia"?

"A random, self-organising, self-referential physics" looks to me to be a generalised definition of "sphere". If so, then it may allow a translating from non-spherical symmetries into spherical.

Here is an example of supposed "random" (I say "supposed" because we actually do know the answer here, and always say?):

"1 + 1 = 2".

Why "random"? Well actually it is not random because I wrote that, that's how it got on the page say (If I am "one" and this "1 + 1 = 2" statement is "one" then we have a different "one + one" superposed with the written "1 + 1 = 2").

But on its own it looks random (of course it is not on its own if you observe it it has you for company) as you might wonder how did these "1"s get together?

Now we have what looks like a Zeno's Arrow scenario: instead of halving our definition of "moment" when we say "the next moment the arrow went half the remaining distance to the target" (so the arrow seems to reach a limit in mid-air as your moments get shorter and shorter):

we have a dividing of "2" as "1 + 1" IN REFERENCE TO AN OBSERVER OR AUTHOR who forms a pair with the statement "1 + 1 = 2" thus giving TWO versions of "1 + 1 = 2" that are superposed AND did I say "two versions"? For what is "two" now?

Where is the two? In the 1 + 1? Or in the ONE (me as author/ or you as observer) PLUS ONE (the statement "1` + 1"?

Chris Langan's "information-recognition" and "conspansive duality" seems implicit here; as does Dr. Stafford's "set/ subset/ examined set; of a set of numbers ; and his "set + "unknown data + unknown data minus one item so items in set still unique" which generates a kind of negative-mathematics.

Dr. Stafford's "data transmission as part of explanation" is noticeable as is Lee Smolin's "thing and screen" idea and Roger Penrose's twistors and spinors.

When maths looks in the mirror you get physics.

If you can SEE self-organising and can SEE self-reference in this starting "randomness" of "how did the 1 and the 1 get together?": then you have blurred vision (as you are ignoring YOUR interaction with this?) ???

The more you assume the "random noise" of a whole lot of "1"s that could be "2"s is self-organising and self-referential the more you REPEAT a "THREE" template which is "1 + 1 = 2, PLUS YOU".

But you might note the three-template: a "1 + 1 = 2" meets another 1 so how do we define "2" now?

Which is 2, which is 3, which is 4?

If you repeat "3-ness" you get string theory; if you repeat "4-ness" you get space-time Dr. Dick style; if you repeat biased 3-ness in 4-ness you get Minkowski geometry; if you SEE 5-ness you get "hyperspace" and loop quantum gravity (where the 4-ness in 4-ness forms defined quantised loops against a partially defined related "random noise".

Now looking at Zeno's Arrow and the imaginary limit in mid-air: you can imagine such arrows going in all directions and running into an imaginary SPHERICAL BOUNDARY all around projected by a generalised 3-D effect (which results in the Bousso limit and "the full glory of string theory on the sphere surface" where "number as string" and "number-base" as "entropy that is area" are interchanged so string theory actually seemingly collapses into nothing at the moment of its most accurate definition!

About Tarvo's artificial consciousness and "dark matter and dark energy":

if you have blurred vision when playing Chess and only know approximately where your pieces are; when you move a piece the effect on your "possible game-plans you could play" is interesting:

The bluriness will propject imaginary extra constraints and imaginary false opportunities in your "possible game developments". E.g. if you are not sure if you have castled or not already; you will get imaginary opportunities (e.g. the opportunity still to castle) and imaginary constraints (e.g. the constraint that you cannot castle if you think you already have).

Of course this example isn't very realistic. You might get the impression on playing "blurry Chess" that some "alien" is playing a "dark game" with "dark moves" (dark matter) and "dark options" (dark energy).

The whole definition of the game is entangled in this (hence the AXIS of the space involved: generating "axions" which violate forwards-backwards in time symmetry and charge-conjugation symmetries (bias-coupling symmetries)(Am trying to recall here; I've worked out axion theory but do not have my notes here).

The impression of "artificial consciousness" is an illusion like "voices heard by so-called shizophrenic" (projections of their OWN voice) and "alien hand" (projections of their own hand?).

"Blurry perception" generates these illusions; axions are closely tied up in Tarvo's "artificial consciousness" as quantised pieces of the whole space (the axis) broken out of it by the progression of space-time.

Sorry this is sketchy have written things up better elsewhere but am way behind on properly answering Tarvo's post about "prediction" and Dr. Stafford's physicsforums "thought experiment".

Why do so-called shizophrenics sometimes feel they have to "obey" the seemingly "alien" projections of their own inner voice (if my postulated theory is fair) ?

If society encourages them to deny responsibility and to disown these "voices" then how can the truth that "the voices OBEY THEM" be asserted?
Perhaps they "obey" the voices in a play-act so as to assert the connection another way or something?

that was a bit messy?

-dolphin