O.K., Maybe Harv there are 700+ words; but Dick: which sentence ( quoting number) isn't clear? I can see why some confusion with what I wrote before; but this is clear isn't it?
Which item is not clear?
(1) You wrote a post: "Harv, How Do You Know Anything?" on Dec 4.
(2) You say that when Alex performs an experiment and collects
results; and says that he just observes facts, he assumes a whole
(3) You say he assumes his equipment functions as he thinks it
(4) You say many people will at least claim the following is a
fact: "that they "observe" (see) something.
(5) You say this still involves presumed knowledge.
(6) The presumed knowledge is assumptions about what happens when
you "observe", a fact.
(7) You give an example: what if "observe a fact" means that a
single nerve cell in the optic nerve is excited?
(8) You say that such an explanation still involves making
(9) These assumptions include: what "a nerve cell" is; and what
"excitement" of that nerve cell is.
(10) You suggest, rather than debate what nerve cells are, or
what excitement of those cells is; try a simple generalisation.
(11) And that simple view is: "observe" means "being aware of
some undefined event".
(12) Plus, what you observe shall be called "fact" meaning "an
event has occured".
(13) Here I note this: As soon as you are aware of a so-called
"undefined event"; it is now slightly defined, in so much as it
has been tagged by a relationship with you.
(14) It is now "the event that you were aware of, otherwise
(15) I also note this: as soon as you have been aware of two so-
called "undefined events"; they are both slightly defined. This
is because now they have relations with you as: "events that you
were aware of, otherwise undefined".
(16) And I note, that the second so-called "undefined event", is
differently slightly-defined than the first.
(17) Because the second event is the event: "that you were aware
of after being aware of the first event". The first event can not
be described like that.
(18) And so a third event would be slightly special by this
circumstance: of being the only undefined event that was related
to you, by virtue of your seeing it, when you had already seen
the first two events.
(19) And so each undefined event becomes individually tagged by
time; and by the growing number of previous events seen, that you
bring as a background to your encounter of each new event.
(20) An alternative, is that you see all the events at once, but
in different places. And each event gets tagged by "place", as
you take in their different locations.
(21) You say this: "I have made two very significant assumptions.
First, I have assumed that one can be aware and second that there
is something of which one can be aware."
(22) I say: you have made three assumptions: (a) "I", that is you
have assumed that you exist. (b) "can be aware" (c) "there is
something of which" one can be aware.
(23) I say: All there is; is who or whatever exists. Beings or
things that don't exist, don't exist.
(24) I say: so being honest is a good idea. Note that all there
is, is all there is; so if you don't bump into what exists; and
pretend it isn't there; it might bump into you! (when you are
not looking, or pretending it isn't there!)
(25) Also, At last you have answered my question about whether
you admit that you assume anything at all to exist; in your paper.
You admit that you exist, that you can be aware, and something is
(26) You look at the problem: "explaining logically a great mass
of undefined events".
(27) You propose attaching a serial number to each event.
(28) You propose that the numbers are attached in such a way
that it is irrelevant what order they are in. One number shall be
as good as another.
(29) You note that whatever procedure you come up with for
organizing the events; the numbers used to tag events must be
(30) You must be able to try that organizing procedure again by
using any bunch of number tags you like for the events. The
organizing procedure must give the same result regardless of any
re-distribution of serial numbers among the events.
(31) For convenience, you call the mass of events "a set of
numbers"; because you use arbitrary tags of: numbers. You could
have used people's names if you wanted.
(32) Whereas in your paper, you define "reality" as a "set of
numbers"; which conflicts with the usual meaning of it as "who,
what, exists"; here you define "Stafford Reality" as "a set of
(33) At last, you have used a more specific term to describe an
academic exercise where "numbers" is just an arbitrarily chosen
tagging system for events. (If the tags were not irrelevant, you
would violate your own rules!).
(34) You now break your rule: the fact you used "numbers" as tags
(and not people's names) suddenly becomes relevant (it's supposed
to be irrelevant!)
(35) (Note: if the re-ordering of number tags is irrelevant, the
fact they are "numbers", and not "names", doesn't matter- you
could have used names.)
(36) How is it that you broke your rule? Because you define
"Stafford reality" as "a set of numbers" and then say that most
of "modern physics is a direct consequence of that definition;
i.e. it is true by definition".
(37) But defining "Stafford reality" as a set of "numbers" should
be irrelevant. Maybe what you really mean is that physics is a
direct consequence of your analysis of the inevitable and
complementary patterns, that occur in a mass of undefined events,
when you organise those events without knowing what they are.
(38)"Stafford reality" could just as well be defined as "a set of
(39) And "physics is a direct consequence of that definition" may
mean that you have found that certain necessary symmetries and
patterns that occur when you sub-divide and compare and combine
and re-arrange "undefined events"; giving physics definitions;
also inevitably give major physics equations.
(40) Your conclusion is?: Physics definitions are given by certain shuffling of undefined events. The equations are inevitable from the
physics definitions. So much of physics is a
(41) Harv would prefer a more technically advanced experiment
than "does water run downhill?", to demonstrate that physics
equations fall out inevitably from physics definitions. Good
(42) The word "event" requires a "change"; because how can you
have an event where nothing happened- not even the happening:
"you saw the event"?
(43) So an observed event must have at least two states of
relationship to you: before it was observed, and when you
observed it. So can depict those two states by calling the event
(44) I can see why some of what I wrote before can look rather
baffling, by the way!