Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Reply To Paul

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on January 7, 2002 09:16:39 UTC

Another Note To Paul

Hi; I don't get to a computer as often currently; thanks for trying my long post- this isn't very long- the idea was to get something printed on the way to figuring out a shorter explanation.

I've tried a much shorter clocks "measure proper time" post.

Interesting about Bateson. What you say about known information generating new information; seems to fit this idea:

To play chess, to have that freedom, you need a conserved (i.e, known) pattern, the chess set and rules. Each move creates a new 'known information state' of the game, that opens up new freedoms, new possibilities for new moves. So known info. provides a launching base bringing freedom of option; taking an option creates a new knowledge base bringing new options, and so on.

This is reminiscent of electric and magnetic fields that push each other along in light waves.

I see what you're saying regarding the idea of listing study approaches in order of increasing rigor and decreasing intuition.

However; Dick is not actually as low on the list, with as maximum rigor, as he could be! He admits to entering your list higher up than the level of analysing the foundations of mathematics (the level that is rigorous to maths itself, so is more rigorous than
maths).

My approach was to go not so much very high up to max intuition on the list; as to exit the list all together by starting with "Existence". "Existence" is the "Alpha and Omega", thus automatically the result is: entering at the lowest point on the list (analysing pre-math, math with "Godel eyes open", applying rigour from below math, the foundations of math); yet also applying max intuition. 'Existence' scans the whole list and outside the list too!

True I may appear to be on shaky math ground, especially when I speculate; but in principle I am excavating the rigor foundations beneath math in tandem with allowing free rein to intuition.

I think Dick's few recent responses do back up your suggestions about why he doesn't respond; but I think he is misjudging the situation. It may only take hitting the ball back and forth three or four times, can be very short posts, for him to realise what is going on. Even the maths is starting to clarify, because I know a bit more now about the how and why eg. of Hamiltonian mechanics.

Dick was prepared to try to get to the point with Harv; if he was willing to hit the ball back and forth more than once or twice I think there can be results; he did not insist on pure technical math talk with Harv. His discovery can be explained in English; I am confident I have found much of the essence of it.

I have been reading QED by Richard Feynman. One of the problems in this forum is that it would be so much easier to explain things with a few drawings/ diagrams than words.

The book by Feynman is incredible; I'm approaching a third of the way through but have filled pages of notes of my own translation of what he describes. I find I can translate Quantum Electrodynamics into a generalised form which is apparantly my version of Dick's discovery.

I can make mistakes but the key can be to ask questions that are so simple no-one thinks of asking them. Dick does that, Einstein did that, children do that, Penrose writes of the value of doing that. Hopefully sometimes I think of sufficiently "dumb" quesions to unravel profound insights.

I didn't realise Harv's point initially; I see now that since Dick is interested in the set "knowledge" contained by him, and its relation to "reality outside, but excluding himself"; he considers the "I" not up for consideration. But it is possible that "I" contain "reality", and "reality" contains "I". This Godel-like self-swallowing set scenario, I think, must be incuded for a proper investigation!

My starting point is "Existence" which allows more rigor than math by analysing math-foundations, yet full intuition!

I very much recommend "QED" by Richard Feynman.

I have more to write but just a little more here:

That idea you mentioned of Roger Penrose: sounds like three circles; red,green,blue; where each contain a little circle of different colour that is actually one of the big circles. Which is along the lines of the 3-way-jump across dimensions, musical chairs across dimensions, ideas I wrote about. I think the sets-containing-each-other idea is in the "Godel,Escher,Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid" book too.

-Alan

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins