On July 12, at Counterbalance.org; Dick wrote something, including this, to me and Franz:
"Notice first, please, that definition occurs between communicators (for example, we have, I assume, agreed that "=" means "is related to the concept") and is not a quality of the symbol (words do not have inherent meanings). That is one of the reasons that words shift meaning from one generation to the next.
Second, it follows from the above that we could just as well redefine (for our internal conversations) "chair" is "concept #1", "table" is "concept #2", "meal" is "concept #4908", "meat" is "concept #32", "beef" is "concept #3", "cattle" is "concept # 4590312", "cowboy" is "concept #45", "hat" is "concept #12" and "sun" is "concept #666". Then we could write: "concept #1"="concept #2"="concept #4908"="concept #32"="concept #3"="concept # 4590312"="concept #45"="concept #12"="concept #666"; which would have *exactly* the same meaning as what was written above.
Of course, we have used the symbol "concept " nine times in the above sentence. The repetition serves little purpose. We could just as well have omitted it by deciding that all we were going to talk about were concepts: i.e., let us presume that we have taken the trouble to number all the concepts used by the human race. If we could agree that in the following statement, a number x means "concept #x", then it would then follow that the statement, 1=2=4908=32=3=4590312=45=12=666 means *exactly* the same thing as "chair=table=meal=meat=beef=cattle=cowboy=hat=sun".
So, down to the nitty gritty! How do we learn what words mean? We could write down millions of lists like the one above. In fact, if we wrote down every possible list consistent with the original concepts meant, and then could spout back one of those lists given any initial and final concept, does it really make any difference what symbol we attach to a concept? It is the relationships between the concepts which is significant. If I know all those relations then I understand what you are talking about; I understand the concepts you are referring to by your symbols.
From this perspective, the rules of reality are nothing more than knowing what patterns in a set of numbers may be seen and what patterns will never be seen. Let us define, for the sake of simplicity in our conversation, "a real" pattern to be one which will be seen. Then All communications are nothing more than "real" patterns taken from the set of all possible patterns. With this we arrive at my definition of "reality": as set of numbers!
There exists nothing you can say which cannot be expressed as a set of numbers: i.e., any concept of reality consists some collection of related concepts. The problem is the shear volume of such relations. The number is so large that no human being can possibly consider all the "real" possibilities. What he can do is come up with rules on those relationships which at least seem to be consistent with what he knows. The problem is that, unless he is very careful, his rules might be internally inconsistent. Even here, the rules become new concepts so the problem fundamentally expands.
My attack is to explicitly place internal self consistency of my conceptual definitions absolutely first. The power of my attack resides in fact that there exists no "pattern of concepts" which cannot be so expressed. Now I don't say I can express those concepts: there are still millions upon millions of them, far more than I, as a human being, can ever hope to examine for self consistency. But I do establish a foundation which is 100% internally consistent: a set of conceptual relations which cannot fail to exist in any conceivable concept of reality (so long as that concept of reality consists of concepts and relations between concepts).
I have only defined a few concepts from my perspective. Note that my concepts are defined such that they apply to any (absolutely any) possible set of conceptual relationship structures. They amount to nothing more than a procedure for arranging the numbers (the concept numbers) in an organized fashion. I say absolutely nothing about reality (i.e., exactly what set of relations of concept numbers are consistent with reality)! I only say that these particular concepts can be defined and that they provide a convenient basis for discussing other relationships.
The concepts I define are "reality", "time", "observation", "object", "clock", "energy", "position", "mass" and "momentum". These are all "primary" concepts which (as I specifically show) may be defined in any possible concept of reality. I then show that an extremely large portion of the field commonly referred to as "physics" is no more than a tautological restatement of the concepts specified by these definitions.
Since, at no time did I ever require anything except self consistency, two very significant facts follow from my work. First, most (and it could be all) of physics tells us nothing about reality (it cannot be used to separate our Universe from all possible Universes as it is true by definition). And Second, it tells us that all possible concepts of reality must include the concepts and the conceptual relations expressed in most of physics.
The problem with physics, as commonly presented, is that many of the concepts are defined a number of different times and it is presumed that the definitions are consistent across the board which they are not! In particular, time (having been defined over and over again throughout history) is very sloppily defined and contains numerous internal inconsistencies. Einstein pointed out one: Newton's concept of time allowed all clocks to be set together which was inconsistent with the fact that communication requires something to happen which requires time!
Even now, scientists think clocks measure time. That idea is a flawed, internally inconsistent concept. If you look at my definition of time, it is nothing more than a fictitious tag on an observation which serves to give order to knowledge. With that definition, I deduce all the observed temporal relations used in physics: that is, the relations have nothing to do with time being measurable! It is what the physicists call "proper time" which is measurable! It is apparently beyond their comprehension that "time" and "proper time" are fundamentally different concepts! Proper time is what is measured by a clock; time is not.
Have fun -- Dick
PS For the fun of it we can call "1=2=4908=32=3=4590312=45=12=666" 99328. If you understand that maybe you understand what I have said" (from Dr. Richard Stafford)
What do you think?