I've got to catch up on reading a lot of your recent conversation; but even the first part of what I've typed may clarify things...... (lots more to type- discoveries a plenty it seems..)
About Dr. Richard Stafford's (D) conversation with Harv:
D:"How do you know anything?"
(Note: "observing fact" implies a comparison or matching of two
patterns: observer; fact; compared via "assumed knowledge of what
We learn that Alex observes experiments and collects results
(facts). Regarding the idea that there is an assumption here of
knowledge of what "observation" is:
why not draw a triangle to represent the assumed knowledge about
the meaning of "making an observation"? Then inside this
triangle one may draw two little triangles in the left and right
In the left lower corner draw a little triangle labelled:
"Alex"; in the right lower corner draw a little triangle labelled
The "parent" (or assumed knowledge) triangle has the "children"
"Alex" and "fact". Suppose one now swaps triangles: the little
triangle "fact" has a turn at being the "parent triangle" (so
becomes assumed knowledge of what "fact" means) to the children
"Alex" and "making an observation". So "Alex" and "making an
observation" are now compared via prior assumption of what "fact"
Or you could make "Alex" the parent (assumed knowledge of what
"Alex" is); and the patterns "fact" and "making an observation"
are compared in the dimension "Alex", taking a turn as the
Taking turns at being the parent! Musical chairs! Jumping between
dimensions: three-way-jump theory!
(See where this leads to? The two little triangles are fractal
dimensions of the parent triangle. Changing base, changing
viewpoint of the situation: here we have the concept appearing of
reality as a Mandelbrot set built of fractal dimensions; the
concepts of: base-jumping within a Mandelbrot set: thus
Mandelbrot relativity; inter-(fractal)dimensional quantum jumps;
collapse of 'mandelbrot wave function'; a particle in one
dimension while a fractal wave spread in fractal dimensions. The
mandelbrot wave collapses when you jump base to a new viewpoint,
a new wholeness-base from which the rest of the scene looks like
Can have Mandelbrot calculus? (analyse acceleration of the
fractal expansion away from your mandelbrot-relativistic
viewpoint). Possibility here of biological physics, neurology of
physics (base jumping as neuron-firing) and so on).
Well, I was jumping ahead of myself there (see: a future wave
coming backwards in time meeting the "offer wave" (John Cramer
interpretation of quantum mechanics) (cellular structure of time
with closed past-future loops -stepping stones- making an
agreement with the Creator about the future, then jumping on to
the past-future cell).
Getting back to where I was before: since either "Alex", "making
an observation", and "fact" can be regarded as the "assumed
knowledge" or "parent" triangle or "base" dimension in a
Mandelbrot relativity (where fractal dimensions expand with
accelerated rate all around from which ever base you choose)
then of course Dick is right to note that one may consider that
no move is more fundamental- any of the three could be the parent
So Dick considers: "excitement of cell" as the parent assumption
(I call "base" (arbritrary whole-dimension"in a Mandelbrot-
relativistic, fractal-dimension world where one may quantum jump
from one base to another (like firing neurons), with (in Dick's
example)" observing fact" and "optic nerve cell" as the fractal
But this portrayal of "making an observation" as "excitement" of
"optic nerve cell" involves assumed knowledge of whichever of
these three concepts you make the "parent" of the other two (or
the origin or base of the other two seen as fractal dimensions of
So you make the parent concept (assumed knowledge) "our
awareness"; and the sub-concepts "A" and "B" being the two states
represented as an event that occured (for an event to occur,
requires a "change" (occuring) even if it's just "fact
communicating/relating to us").
Dick's basic assumptions are: (1): we (2): can be aware: and
there (3): is something; of which we can be aware.
So Dick does agree with me on that!
D: "We have some great mass of undefined events of which we are
aware"; "aware that an event has occured".
"Event occuring" must imply two states that describe the change
(even if it's just a change from "object" to "object with
relationship with observer"). (That "relationship" turns out to
be a fractal dimension of the pattern-matching holisim of that
object outside space and time).(jumping ahead: think of re-
creating a "Mandelbrot inter- fractal-dimensional wave front" to
create a "Mandelbrot hologram" in fractal pattern-matching
O.K., so a great mass of undefined events of which we are aware,
and were aware of AT THE TIME of each event- so they are already
tagged by time! And yes, Dick tels us that time can be seen as a
tag for making an observation! That's a bright idea all right- so
I get that after reading Dick's explanation!
Now: Dick raises the question: how to explain these events
logically- this mass of undefined events- but already we have
started to do that: they are tagged by time!
Now Dick numbers the events. He says the structure of these
numbers must be irrelevant: so long as you start from scratch
each time you change the numbers-structure, O.K. Otherwise once
you number the events, you have tagged the inherent time-tags and
frozen out the hidden time-order of events, on to your number
Certainly you are free to call the events by any number-tag in
any order; so long as you don't try to relate one number
structure to another other than on a quantised basis- an event
one-to-one per number. If you start relating groups of numbers in
one view of the mass of events with numbers or groups in another
view; you will introduce uncertainties of finding a particular
actual one-to-one quantum relation; you will end out with
probabilities of finding events, and probability waves that fall
naturally out of the act of trying to group events together
between different models of the undefined-events mass.
This could be worked out mathematically: you would end out with a
partial differential equation that describes the act of partially
differentiating the relationship between one model's structures
and another model; this equation would also apply to your model's
relationship with reality. So now Dick's fundamental transform
diagram makes sense!
The relationship between a model of reality, and an alternate
model; IS THE SAME AS the relationship between reality and a
If the Schrodinger wave function falls out of the necessary
mathematics of modelling reality; makes you wonder.
Why would Schrodinger's equation be only an approximation to
Dick's partial differential equation? Note that reality contains
"the NON-equivalence principle": to be, is to be different.
Because if A was identical in every possible way with B; there
would be only one object, and A and B are just AB.
Consider: Shrodinger's equation would be a
description of a fractal wave function, such that it can be
the wave function associated with a partial differentiation of
a holistic "Mandelbrot-space". It looks like
the two models of reality (Schrodinger, Stafford) are related
in this way. Mathematics is like a Mandelbrot set: maths 1 + 1
can't be two in every possible way: they must have a quantum of
difference or there would be only one 1!
1 and 1 are fractal dimensions of 2. Base 10 is a "10-brain"
providing "bases" for mathematical "neuron firing" in a multipli-
connected "brain" called "mathematics jumping among 10x bases"
not 'math bases' just "base" as in "starting place".
You can jump from 10 to 20 to 280 to 90050 (100s as mega-bases,
1000s as mega-mega-bases, etc.) in this fractal-dimensions math-
space. You can re-route calculations via countless different
paths. You could jump from fractal dimension 4 of base 90 (a
multiple of 10) to fractal dimension -7 of base 20
if you wanted, when say adding 94 to 13. OR you could have jumped
to fractal +3 of 10 to do that.
You could construct a super-math-brain where the super-bases were
actual number-bases so you could do maths calculations in the
easiest base. Most computers are just 1-brains using base 1, so
they are very slow. A neural super-network of super-bases would
be faster, with multi-route calculations allowing massive
There is much more to type; just thought I'd post the first bit.