God & Science 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 More On Harv, Dr. Dick; Physics Modelling Debate Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on December 16, 2001 07:47:06 UTC

(1):We (2):can be aware (3):and there is something;
of which(3) we(1) can be aware(2).

Now, Dick has established that however you look at reality, you
are using one concept in the role "assumed knowledge",
effectively as the "parent" of the other two.

D: "We have some great mass of undefined events of which we can be
aware". Note that "event" has two parts, two states: a before and
after; or a here and there; etc.

Now, however you approach this mass of "undefined events";
inevitable logic with how you see the others.

Take one of the events. Once upon a time, "we are aware of event
E". (Or once upon a place, we bump into event E). Presuming that
you can not have another event occupying exactly the same time-
spot (or place) as event E; you are going to have to group all
the other events as being in a different time (or place) to E.
Now, suppose you take some other event, event F. Presuming that
you can not have another event occupying exactly the same time-
spot (or place) as E or F, then you are going to have to group
all the other events as being in a different time (or place) to
F.

Actually, since it is easy to imagine events at the same time but
different places; or at the same place but at different times;
we better talk in terms of space-time location of events. More
abstractly, we can just talk in terms of a rule: events can not
occupy the same co-ordinate in a particular geometry.

Returning to the idea that to know reality requires some concept
that involves prior knowledge, or assumed knowledge: we may be
aware of an event (or change) A,B at some reference point.

Consider our awareness as a triangle that contains event A,B,
represented by two little triangles A and B inside the triangle
of our awareness.

We become aware of another event F,G; so the triangle of our
awareness grows to accomodate this new event. Our old awareness
triangle TA contains event A,B. A new bigger awareness triangle
TA2 contains both TA and event F,G. So as you add more events,
the triangles of awareness grow; each bigger triangle still has
all the progressively smaller triangles nested inside.

These nested triangles look like a superposition of fractal
dimensions; a kind of fractal standing wave.

AS we bump into more events through time, our awareness of the
time-relationship of the events grows; as we bump into more
events in space, our awareness of the space-relationship of the
events grows.

Regardless of the distribution of the events in time or in space;
there is a basic pattern that describes how awareness grows as
each event is added; and this basic pattern (even if it tells us
nothing about the proper relationship of the events) will give us
a means for partially differentiating one event from the others.

The correct ordering of events will describe a possible order we
might have taken through the event field during our "random
wander" through the mass of undefined events.

If a particular event in the correct order of events were
described by a wave function of probability spread over several
possible correct-orders; I guess that wave function would be an
approximation to the partial differential equation that describes
the basic structure of how the events can look from one event.

My guess is that the broadness of the Stafford equation allows it
to cover physics; just as the broadness of Hamiltonian mechanics
allows it to apply to so much physics.

Dick writes of "no concept of anything" which can not be cast in
the form of "Stafford Reality"; obviously, because "concept" is a
tag for "anything"; so of course there is no concept of anything
that can not be cast in the form "concept of anything"- "concept"
being a "tag" and "anything" being an "event" in Stafford Reality.

Because "Staffod Reality" is so abstract and undefined; even
"awareness" or "prior assumption" becomes a category that grows
as more events are added. And of course, the more events you add,
the more events you have prior knowledge of. So the inevitable
logic of a "random walk" through a "Stafford event field" will
give you a series of nested sets that look like fractional
dimensions of the largest set. Thus this looks like a Mandelbrot
set.

Harv is right that surely one could find a modern physics
experiment to demonstrate precisely if the results were pre-
defined. Like if you define "a sub-atomic particle "Z" as the 1%
uncertainty in the result of one in every 100 X,Y collisions that
are known to have a 1% error margin;; and you carry out 100 X,Y
collisions and claim you found a Z particle?

From D: "QED and QCD; essentially methods of approximating
solutions to many body problems which become problematical in a
'theoretically correct' attack from the more fundamental
position. This business of approximating solutions reminds me of
fractal dimensions in a Mandelbrot set.

If you measure a coastline with aircraft-carrier lengths as a
yardstick, and add them up; you will get a shorter total length
than if you add up kayak lengths and cover more of the detailed
ins and outs of the coastline.

If you use your walking stride as a yardstick, you can cover the
finer detail of the coast line and this shorter yardstick gives
you an even longer total length. If you use a beetle walking
around the coast, the extra distance of rounding every pebble
gives you an even longer total length.

The smaller the yardstick you use; the longer the total length
you get. Unlike using smaller and smaller line-segments to
measure a circle by a many sided inner polygon, where
the approximations converge on a limit; the coast-measuring total
keeps growing.

Benoit Mandelbrot calls coastlines "fractal patterns", and the
associated curves "fractal curves". But he has a formula
reminiscent of what Dick seems to have done; a formula that
allows different coast-measure-totals to be compared with each
other because the approximate coast length in a chosen yardstick-
size is independent of the fractal dimension you use it in (or
something).

Maybe a "Mandelbrot Calculus" would produce Einstein's relativity
equations as "Mandelbrot derivatives" of Dick's partial
differential equation (which presumably partially differentiates
an abstract fractal-dimensional "relativity of yardstick-of-
knowing" Mandelbrot holistic "space"?

Returning to the idea of using nested triangles to represent the
way the "parent assumption" or "prior knowledge" grows as you
"swallow" more events: Suppose abstractly; a triangle of
awareness C of event A,B collides with a triangle of awareness Y
of event P,R.

Suddenly you have triangle C grows to a bigger size as it becomes
aware of both B,C and Y:P,R. Then a swap: C collapses back as it
is swallowed by triangle Y which suddenly grew as it contained C:
A,B and its own event P,R. Having each had a turn at being the
parent of the new knowledge of the other; the triangles C: A,B
and Y:P,R part company.

But notice that we just had two "virtual triangles" with this
collision; where each triangle had a turn at being "parent" to
the other. These two virtual triangles are a virtual event with
the parent: collision of the two colliding objects.(That is: the
collision itself becomes "prior knowledge" after it has occured).

If the two colliding particles are fermions; we find Dick's
result to be true: the exchange of information with the collision
of fermions created a virtual fermion- an "un-real" fermion, a
photon or gluon- so Dick is correct to regard bosons as "un-real"
fermions, or as another dimension to a basically fermionic
structure.

Consider a diagram of nested triangles representing the growing
"prior assumption" dimension as "events" are acquired:

Event 1,2 gives a little triangle for the left and right corners
of parent assumption triangle 3. This parent knowledge "3" is a small
triangle next to another similar small triangle "4". ("4" is a
parent to the event little triangles G,H).

The small parent assumed knowledge triangles "3", and "4"; are
themselves inside a bigger prior-knowledge "parent" triangle "5".
Next to "5" is another similarly big parent triangle "6".
"6" contains a small parent triangle to the left called "T". "T"
contains the event: triangles "I" and "J". There is no small
parent containing an event in the right space of big parent "6".

Instead, this is a "swap space". Triangles "3", "5", and "T" are
same size "parents" and can represent 3 quark colours. The little
triangles within them can represent 6 quark flavours.
Triangles "5" and "6" are within the assumed knowledge "parent"
larger triangle "7"; represents matter. A similar triangle to "7"
represents "anti-matter". The "swap space" allows matter-anti-
matter exchanges. Like in a Chess game, I guess matter made the
first move so matter stayed a jump ahead of anti-matter ensuring
we see lots of matter?

In the double slit experiment; a photon is represented as a
triangle in a higher-dimension-space where both slit options are
visible. This "higher-space 'parent' assumed knowledge dimension
of the photon: each lower dimension smaller "triangle" of the
photon "takes a turn at being that parent"- takes a turn as it
were of creating its parent "hyperphoton" (so goes backwards in
time). You don't see the hyper-photons, only the lower-dimension
aspects. On the screen, succesive hyperphotons interfere with
each other and cancel except on one path (one slit or the other).

Haven't figured it all out for sure; and there's lots more to explain that may be at least partly right.