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
How I First Cracked The "code" Of Dr. Stafford's Paper

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on January 15, 2002 06:48:29 UTC

It was my post on June 27, 2001 "Maybe now we do agree? How Dick seems to be right." at "Physics, Maths, Models, and Reality 1" at Counterbalance.org that I made a serious re-discovery of what Dick was up to.

Aurino, surely you know what the English word "distinction" means? Alex, you surely can see what is going on here?

Dick's discovery is very simple to understand in essence.

Short version:

52 cards can be seen as say 20 cards and 1 mega-card.

Necessary pattern: the mega card must represent 32 cards, if consistent with the requirement that 52 cards be represented by 20 cards + mega (52 - 20 cards).

Take all combinations of 21 cards representing 52 cards (eg. 1 mega-card represents 2 cards, plus 50 regular cards gives 52 total; eg. 1 mega-card represents 3 cards, plus 49 regular cards gives 52 total; .... 5 ultra-cards represent 4 mega-cards which each represent 2 reg. cards so 5 x 4 x 2 = 40 cards, plus 12 reg. cards gives the 52 total; and so on for numerous arrangements).

These combinations are the sum of possible descriptive patterns BUT are LIMITED by the requirement of summing to 52 regular cards. So we are talking about the generic necessary infrastructure of numerical descriptive patterns.

Very long version:

My reply back then was a bit long-winded; but here it is:

1. What do you make of the following then?

"I am afraid that the common rules of usage make absolutely nothing clear! That is my exact complaint with the common definitions of many terms!"

John Hospers admits something similar; he acknowledges (as in my para. 5) that it is exceedingly difficult to define words already in the language like 'chair' and 'cat'; such that you could replace the word with the 'defining words'; and always mean exactly the same.

2. I guess the answer to that is that word-definition is built from agreement and guesswork; people get by communicating with words, because of the success of their guesses and their trust in their agreements.

3. When I say "it is a mistake to define "reality" as "a set of numbers"; I mean it is a mistake to create a NEW DEFINITION for a word; and then start interchanging it with the other common accepted and DIFFERENT definition of the word. People could find that confusing, ambiguous.

4. Suppose then, I accept your NEW definition. Because there is this other word-agreement "reality" that means "what exists"; I shall refer to your word-agreement "reality" as "R (a set of numbers)".

5.We now have two word-agreements here.

"reality", common usage, means "what exists".

"R (set of numbers)", means "a set of numbers".

6. "Let us suppose for the sake of argument that some ancient Egyptian just happened to comprehend the true nature of reality. That he has the correct answer to every question which can be asked on any subject. Knowing everything, he also knows how to avoid death....."

7. Hey! Not fair! In this paragraph, you just took "R (set of numbers)" (which you told us earlier is how you use the word "reality") and SWAPPED IT
for "reality" "what exists"!

8. Because you just now used "reality" as: "That he has the correct answer to every question which can be asked on any subject. Knowing everything, he also knows how to avoid death..."

9. Haven't you equivocated two DIFFERENT meanings of reality? That is confusing! If you are going to ditch the common meaning of "reality" and define it as "A set of numbers"; it's not fair to suddenly REDEFINE "reality" the other common way.

10. Any interchanging of these two word-agreements violates the law of non-contradiction.

11. Consider:

"Knowing everything........he has been composing a document which contains a complete description of his knowledge and understanding (in hieroglyphs of course)."

12. Here you make an assumption: that it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (non-contradictory) for "everything" to be represented by a document description.

13. This assumption is the same as your conclusion; that "everything" can be represented by a description (set of numbers).

14. When an assumed premise is the same as a conclusion, an argument is circular.

Also, what is the backing for the assumption?
Surely you have to use induction; unless you have managed to test all reality to see whether it can all be represented by a document description?

They say that induction is not a valid argument (though seems useful for making good guesses).

15. If one simplifies things, of course one can acknowledge that Existence requires DISTINCTION; and a 'set of DISTINCTIONS' ("reality" common usage, your Egyptian's usage) can be 'represented' in the most simple way by another 'set of DISTINCTIONS' ("R (set of numbers)" your different definition of "reality").

16. Suppose then; to allow your argument to continue; I assume you use this most basic approach (which avoids the induction problem).

It is analytically true that a 'set of Distinctions' is like (represented, documented by) a 'set of Distinctions'
(but represented ONLY so far that they are both sets of distinctions.)

17. "Reality" common use version, 'what is', is obviously a set of distinctions; however, the source of 'Is-ness', Existence (God) transcends all this (makes the set of distinctions possible in the first place.)

18. So you go: 'set of distinctions' (all that is, except 'IS')
like 'a set of distinctions' (Egyptian's knowledge)
like 'a set of distinctions' (hieroglyphs document)
like 'a set of distinctions' (secret code)
like 'a set of distinctions' (computer graphics)
like 'a set of distinctions' (wire recorder recordings).

19. Now you say he protected his knowledge by (shuffling it into) a secret code. To be able to code it at all, there must be some complexity, or organisation; there must be information content, or distinctions about the distinctions; otherwise 52 cards represents 52 cards regardless of shuffling them.

20. They must have meaning, for one to be able to conceal meaning.

Hey! You have now assumed that there is more complexity involved than just:

'a set of distictions' is like 'a set of distinctions' just in that they are both sets of distinctions.
(52 cards is like 52 cards just in that they are 52 cards (disregardng card identities).

21. You have now made the assumption: 'that COMPLEXITY within a set of distinctions (52 cards and their identities)

is able to be REPRESENTED theoretically (logically possible)
by another COMPLEX 'set of distinctions' (52 cards and their identities)

22. Actually this assumption appears to be analytically true, or self evident; PROVIDED THAT there are no additional layers of complexity (one identity per card only).

23. If one of the cards contained 20 mini-cards; you would have to have 20 more distinctions or cards in your model set.
Still, by adding more and more cards (distinctions) to your model set, you could potentially model any degree of complexity; your model has to have the same total number of distinctions as what is modelled.

24. You can assume that a shuffle-able i.e. COMPLEX
set of distinctions (the coded hieroglyphs) can be represented by another
NON-shuffle-able i.e. SIMPLE set of distinctions. But a simple set of distinctions (52 cards, ONLY different in that there are 52 of them) will not conceal anything if shuffled (52 cards is 52 cards). So far the representation doesn't allow the wires to be shuffled

25. But you could mirror this process, taking the new SIMPLE set of distinctions and collapse it into (happens with wave-collapse of photons?) a layered or COMPLEX set of distinctions.

26. So we have COMPLEX set (particle) becomes SIMPLE set (wave) becomes COMPLEX set (particle) again.

Mass = Energy = Frequency = Pattern distinctions.

27. That is: 52 cards, one of them contains 20 mini-cards; so we have a COMPLEX set of distinctions.

Represent it by 72 cards (SIMPLE set of distinctions)

Re-complexify it by represent it by say: HEY! I SEE WHAT YOU ARE UP TO! There are certain rules about this! (So I went back and filled in the particle-wave exchange bit)

28. You have to keep the total amount of distinctions CONSTANT.
(Source of 'constants' in nature?)

29. And if you wanted to represent all combinations in a complex set; you would be into probability-type formulations. This explains why complex sub-atomic phenomena match probability-math patterns!

30. And any information-exchange event MUST INVOLVE A CONSTANT (QUANTUM!). Just as representing one set of distinctions by another set of distinctions must involve CONSTANTS that conserve the number of distinctions.

31. If it was just 52 cards without identities (without complexity); it wouldn't matter about shuffling- the simple info. '52 wires (cards)' stays evident
regardless of shuffling.

32. It appears to be demonstrated that the COMPLEXITY can be represented by COMPLEXITY. You could say the complexity must itself involve distinctions, which can be simplified then re-complexified.

33. So that's interesting, as that allows one to claim as self-evident that even a shuffle-able set of distinctions
is still a set of distinctions
comprising shuffle-causing distinctions and a simple set of distinctions
and so the problem the universe presents us with
is to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
between the original set of distinctions
and the shuffle-causing set of distinctions!

(This is fun!)

34. Now do you see why I say that "reality" ('that what is' word-agreement version)
can be explained as three games of which one is not a game:

original set of distinctions (musical chairs) (patterns)

shuffle-causing set of distinctions (join-the-dots) (framing and matching patterns)

and the third is not a game as it is important to avoid confusion (or avoid death)

Know The Difference
(Know The Difference between a set of original distinctions (simplicity) and a set of shuffle-causing distinctions (complexity).

35. In fact; "know the difference" involves "knowing simple distinctions" between two similar looking games "musical chairs" and "join the dots".

36. By means of honesty, (avoiding contradictions, not evading (contradicting) anything you sense exists (i.e. distinctions))
one may collapse layer after layer of confusion and differentiate the two games that make up reality through their difference.

37. Isn't this the problem we face re: your Egyptian's shuffled wires?

So it appears that this PRESUMED COMPLEX "reality" (common usage version)
can be represented by SIMPLICITY ("R (set of numbers) your different reality-word agreement).

38. This presumption turns out to be self-evident, when one realises that COMPLEXITY still involves making distinctions; so even a complex set of distinctions ("reality" "what is" common use word-agreement)
is still a set of distinctions
and since a set of numbers
may be viewed as a set of distinctions
one may say that
in a basic way
"reality" ("what is" common useage word agreement)
may be likened to (represented by)
another set of distinctions (for example, a set of numbers ("R(set of numbers) "reality" your new-word -agreement).

39. So, having proven you correct in a way; the question is,
do you go further than that?

Surely this post is not beside the point?

40. The problem: knowing the difference between operator (complexity causing, shuffle-causing) distinctions
and original distinctions!

Or: making simple distinctions between two sets of complex distinctions!

41. In the simple sense that 'a set of distinctions' can be represented by 'a set of distinctions';
you are right that the information you have to work with can be translated (theoretically) into a set of numbers.

42. You are right that, IF the Egyptian knew "reality" ("what is" word-agreement version),
that is he would know
the difference between 'original distinctions' and 'shuffle-causing type or COMPLEXITY type distinctions',
in so far as his distinctions mirrored the "reality" (common usage version: what is)
then to decode his information would reveal to you his information and thus that "reality" ("what is" version).

42. Or one may say; the Egyptian must be able to make simple distinctions between two sets of (shuffle-causing) complex distinctions. He must differentiate betwen two games of musical chairs; one of which must be 'join the dots'!

43. But that's just saying, if he can do it (mirror reality), you can do it. The conclusion here might be a circular argument, already contained in the premises.
But of course you can co it: it is self evident you can make simple distinctions; you can be honest, you can be non-contradictory!

44. Does it all work in reverse? Then the Egyptian doesn't model "reality" ("what is" word-agreement version)
"reality" models (creates) him!
And to know "reality" ("what is" version, is to know the experience of being created (modeled).

45. Creation: for example 'the big bang'; an explosion of distinctions becoming patterned and layered and complexified as God (Creator) (Existence) lets everything be into more levels of complexity and distinction?

46. "Since I can make up an analogous story to translate any concept of reality (and likewise all the conclusions that concept might entail) into a set of numbers, why not just define reality to be a set of numbers?"

May I translate this:

Since I can make up a complex set of distinctions to translate (via a simple set of distinctions)

any concept of reality in so far as reality is a set of distinctions
(and likewise any conclusions (complex sets of distinctions derived via simple sets of distinctions from complex sets of distinctions)

translating the reality concept via a set of numbers (simple set of distinctions),

then why not just define reality (set of distinctions) to be a set of numbers (set of distinctions)?

47. Why not? Because it's confusing? Someone else could define reality as a set of imaginary animals. Why not just define reality as 'a set of distinctions'?

48. That is the same as the everyday use of the word: "reality" is what exists (which obviously is a set of distinctions; because to BE is to BE distinct) (If pattern A wasn't distinct in at least some way from pattern B; it would be just another name for pattern B. It must be distinct, to be at all! At least distnct from IS)

49. If you are consistent with the above; it appears that your presentation WOULD be a demonstration, and would be of grave significance.

50. I can show you that I did the same thing in a different way; starting with Existence; the relationship of Existence (Distinctness) requiring a foundation of pattern A, pattern B, and comparison C; and a multilayered multi-inter-dimensional structure that creates forth from this foundation.

51. I found that it appears physics mysteries and others too, dissolve into lucid clarity when one applies this approach.
If you have done what you appear to have done; then you have given a maths angle on what I did visually.

Maybe we don't disagree so much now?

Thanks for your considering this ,

Regards,

Alan (17934934)
P.S. I wrote this next bit before, but I kept discovering why you were right and going back and changing stuff that initially didn't agree; so this part got overlooked but is part of the final package:

52. (Complexity-distinctions = information-distinctions? would suit physicist Paul Davies ideas well ("The Fifth Miracle" by Paul Davies, postulates as yet allegedly undiscovered COMPLEXITY laws and creative, information laws that operate on information (negative-entropy?) as forces do on particles)

53. "So what can I say about the possible patterns I may find on those wires (note, this is before I look)? That is the subject of my presentation in "The Foundations of Physical Reality"."

Can I translate this:

So what can I say about:

C1: 'the collection of distinctions that comprises'

C2: 'possibly (alleged uncertainty here) some simple Distinctions, plus complexity-causing distinctions;
that complexified

C3: 'possibly (alleged uncertainty here) some simple
distinctions plus complexity-causing distinctions;
that complexified

C4: 'possibly (alleged uncertainty here) some simple distinctions plus complexity-causing distinctions;
that complexified

Cn (less than infinity?)
'possibly (alleged uncertainty here) some simple distinctions plus
complexity-causing distinctions;
that complexified

Cn+1 simple distinctions

distinguished by Existing (Ultimate Explanation; there are no more 'something else's in terms of which to do the explaining) (Christianity teaches Existence = God = Love
is Three persons in One)

54. (Does your website provide Paul Davies with the answer?)

TRUE, the problem facing scientists is how to uncover what the Egyptian is saying; or;
uncover that they are the Egyptian! (My view) (Socrates: All Knowledge is remembrance.)

55. An idea: we knew it all the moment we were conceived; we just need to let God (Existence) talk to us (via honesty, awareness, non-evasion, of what exists- my approach explained in the topic: "2001. an Inner Space Odyssey"). Long version from Counterbalance.org



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