Dr. Dick,

You say:

"That means that the algorithm for obtaining those expectations can not be a function of that mapping procedure described in the fabrication of the model. If it is a function of that procedure, it is most certainly the wrong answer as the expectations become a function of that procedure and not a function of the elements of C:"

My experience is that the elements of C is a function of the mapping procedure the mapping procedure. I can imagine a model which as a special case includes evey possibe mapping procedure. But I cannot conceive of a model that is independent of the mapping procedure. Please give me an example of one.

Here is another interesting statement:

"any relationships you want to include in the modeled explanation must arise from C. "

Let's say C is the pattern of photons impinging on a detector. You seem to be saying that from just a few photon measurements you can tell all the pertinent relationships like if the photons went through a double slit or if the photon source was coherent, etc. Presumably A is the pattern that results in the infinite limit of detections. If not, please correct my thinking. It seems you have to nurse me from my present world model to yours.

Now, without the benefit of knowing whether the photon path contained a double slit or not, it seems unlikely to me that C alone could be

"the very best one can do (by definition)"

Do you claim that C contains enough information to say with certainty that the path contained a double, because we are 100% sure from an external relationship that it does. You have already said that all results are probablistic. So I know the answer.

wanda

• Can a human brain ever produce unpredictable algorithms/outputs? - kantolfir2 - January 1, 2005 - 23:01 UTC
  • It seems you do not understand my post - wandaqueen - January 2, 2005 - 04:25 UTC
    • Let's see - kantolfir2 - January 2, 2005 - 04:52 UTC
    • Really? Is that a technical assessment? - carefuluniverse - January 6, 2005 - 05:53 UTC
• C is defined to be ALL the relevent information. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:08 UTC
  • You are right - wandaqueen - January 3, 2005 - 02:29 UTC
    • So I've run you off have I? - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 18:02 UTC
      • Well you never answered my last question - wandaqueen - January 4, 2005 - 00:45 UTC
        • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:13 UTC
          • Seems contradictory - wandaqueen - January 5, 2005 - 14:31 UTC
            • I really didn't intend to upset you. - doctordick - January 6, 2005 - 01:12 UTC
              • Ahh- You defined expectation - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:45 UTC
              • Here is a clear contradiction - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:50 UTC
                • Thank you for your attention. - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 05:08 UTC
                  • A model of nature - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 16:24 UTC
                    • Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
                      • Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
                        • Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
                          • You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
                            • That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
                              • "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
                                • You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
                                  • You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
                      • Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
                        • I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC
                  • Everything means infinity - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 15:52 UTC
                    • Harv/Wanda and who else? Maybe Bruce? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:49 UTC
                      • I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
                        • I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
                          • intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC
                  • Sorry- you said 'Theory of Anything" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:53 UTC
                    • And exactly where did I say "theory" of anything? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:17 UTC
                      • Explanation =s theory in my mind - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:53 UTC
        • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:14 UTC