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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Physics Mirrorworld Part 1 (clarifies Anything?)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on March 19, 2002 10:13:11 UTC

The Mirror-World Of Physics

1. I've been trying to understand the work of physicist Richard Stafford. His apparent discovery that most, or even all Physics, was circular arguments, sure looked worth puzzling over. Could Physics laws be logical consequences of physics definitions?

Although a detailed mathematical demonstration by R.Stafford, of his work, has existed for years; the puzzle for me has been to understand what it all means.

Having realised already the value of noticing what exists, of being and let be; and having discoveries from this; combined with internet discussions on the Stafford discovery; now leads to a breakthrough I think in understanding his discovery.

There could be errors in my interpretation of physics; as I tend to be adventurous in trying out ideas. Hopefully some of this will make sense though.


2. I got to the point of thinking that R. Stafford had developed a "Logical Consistency Analyzer". That is, a way of analyzing the patterns and laws that occur, when you are logically consistent.

I thought: The "Laws of Physics" are deliberately phrased in a Mathematical form that is logically consistent with Physics definitions. Therefore if you analyze either "the Laws of Physics" or "Physics Definitions" from the point of view of a "Logical Consistency Analyzer": you will get the other side of the coin (e.g. analyze physics definitions and you would get Physics laws.)

It still remains a possibility that...that what? How could you ever know there was a law other than logical consistency itself? Any other "law" will reflect your definitions, and vice-versa, through the mirror of logical consistency.

You cannot prove that there isn't a law, you simply have no way of telling whether there is a law or not- other than logical consistency itself!

However, every event may be a 'little' law; unproven and un-provable; just being; non-contradicting, so logically consistent. Logically consistent groups of such events may grow together in to larger logically consistent creations; thus 'order' from 'chaos' (or 'chaos' from 'order', depending on your point of view)

3. Looking for physics laws; example: Suppose a law of nature that: pigs fly. How could you ever discover this law? Logical consistency requires that you do not confuse "pigs" with "sheep", or "fly" with "walk".

You do an experiment and find that pigs fly - you were not sure till you did the experiment. You discovered a new law? Or was it already present in your definition of "pig" and "fly"?

To define "pig" you must look at a lot of broad categories and also at a lot of narrow categories. A broad category is "animal". Too broad to define pig though. A narrow category is "that particular creature in farmer Smith's yard beside you". Too narrow to be a definition of all "pigs”.

Somehow you've got to find an intersection of many categories. And inside the boundary of that multi-intersection, is category "pig".

4. In the book: 3rd edition of "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers; Chap. 1 "Meaning And Definition", page 26, I found a key to understanding physics. When you define something, you have to get all the defining characteristics in to the definition.

With the example "pig"; you have to ensure you are covering not just actual pigs but possible pigs that would still be pigs.

For example; 500 years ago you might have included "being on the Earth" in your definition of "dog". But that would not have made sufficient allowance for the possible ways a dog COULD be a dog!(Although you could have managed 500 years ago with such a restriction on "dog" without meeting a contradiction.)

There was however, a potential contradiction; because a dog has now been in a spacecraft above the Earth, and was still a dog. So you may want to include substantial degrees of freedom in your defining characteristics of "dog". This, so as to be adequate to cover all alternative ways a dog could be a dog!


5. This looks reminiscent of quantum physics and Schrodinger's equation; where they talk of a "wave function" (e.g. "dog function") changing in time, involving all 2-D number weighted alternative ways an event can happen. (E.g. all dog-here/dog-there ways (2 pattern ways) a dog-before can still be a dog-after! (still be a dog-event)(a pattern comparison).

A dog-on-Earth and a dog-in-the-center-of-the-Sun is a dog-here and an attempted dog-there; but not exactly a dog-before and a dog-after for the purpose of defining "dog", it would seem.

Obviously once you have an actual "time" event of dog-here-before and dog-there-after; the "dog function" jumps to a new spot in this hopping game along all the logically consistent possibilities for a dog to be a dog!

6. This "jumping" in the "dog wave function", of dog-logically-consistent-possibilities, to an individual possibility, is a consequence of the very fact of "time" meaning the comparing and matching of actual patterns; and "wave function" meaning the sum of possible pattern-match-ups.

R.Stafford writes of taking a number of subsets from the infinity of possible subsets; and attaching a "time" parameter to "the ordered set of examined subsets". Thus here "time" refers to an ordered structure of patterns, to a pattern network taken from the range of all possible such networks.

He calls a particular value of time an "observation", where one pattern is separated, thus compared against the ordered structure that he has selected and organized. Although he requires the ordered structure to be finite; he allows its members to be drawn from anywhere in his infinite source; thus ensuring the possibility of any number of non-selected subsets to be between the ones he put labels on (time-labeled).

R.Stafford seems to suggest that a selected, time-labeled set of patterns taken from an infinite source, may already be ordered by some unknown rule. But if that were so, how could those patterns be so arbitrarily placed in the source that any number of other patterns may occur between the ones selected?

If they are organized by some unknown algorithm, they will not have just any number between each; unless they are 'organized' solely by freedom and the law of non-contradiction.


7. To exist at all means non-contradiction and freedom applies to things. R. Stafford supposes that some patterns are say double patterns that he doesn't realize are double. So he imagines adding "unknowable data" to each observation to cover the possibility that he has missed a subdivide-ability in what were thought to be sole observations.

So we have the observer doesn't know if an observation is really a collection; and treats this uncertainty as a cloud of "unknowable data" associated with the observation. That imagined data would, if known, subdivide the observation into unique elements.

8. Further, we have that the observer doesn't know if a particular observation is already subdivided from something bigger that he doesn't know about. So additional "unknowable data" is added to each observation. So the source of observations includes all unique observations, neither smaller than thought or bigger than thought. But they may be aggregated so as to appear to be single, but with hidden broadness or hidden narrowness.

This looks like John Hospers on definition: "We want to know what are the characteristics, the presence of which would entitle something to be called an elephant and the absence of which would keep it from being called one. To know this, we must go beyond the range of the actual things to which the word is applied."

R. Stafford's "adding unknowable data" is going beyond the range of the actual things to which his observations are applied.

The term "unknowable" obviously is misleading; it is only "unknowable" in the supposed scenario.

9. Returning to the idea of covering all the possible ways a "pig" has of being a pig; one may also, exclude, anything which is logically inconsistent with being a pig (e.g. exclude animals with many stripes).

I say: "one may" rather than "one must"; because one has freedom to define things however one wants; only that as you define, so you are defined. Thus a person who includes the possibility of many stripes on a pig, may end out finding parts of their definition contradict, and end out having to re-allocate some pigs" to another category "zebras".

One might regard certain scientific definitions as tentative; experiments may lead the scientist to reshuffle the definitions. Like discovering that one ought to exclude stripes from the definition of "pig"; the scientist might, after looking at nature by experimenting, want to remove newly discovered logical inconsistencies in the old definitions.


10. But what experiments to do? Returning to "suppose a law of nature was that pigs fly"; the word "pig" involves an intersection of several categories, so to does the word "fly".

Consider the categories, e.g. "animal', "has two eyes", "a certain size range", etc. that produce an overlapping region within which are all the possible ways of being a pig. If that region already excludes the category "can fly"; and this is known; then need one only examine one's definition of "pig" to determine if "pigs fly" is a law of nature?

Certainly if it is logically inconsistent for "pigs" to "fly" by virtue of one's very definition of "pig"; then is there no need to experiment and see if pigs can fly?

Not quite, one may have factored in some erroneous assumptions into one's definition. But if one treats one's definition as a law; then if one's own law of definition of "pig" and "fly" means the two are logically inconsistent; then pigs cannot fly by definition.

(The reality, however, is that creation can always produce something which requires one to reshuffle one's definitions. But if you put on logical-consistency "glasses" of definition "pigs can not fly", you may find what you see is how you see. Having excluded pigs from flying, by definition; you would presumably invent a new name if you saw what someone else would call a flying pig.)

11. Now, moving from pigs to cats. In the intersection of categories that gives a mutual overlap wherein lie all the ways a cat can still be a cat, but excluding all the ways a cat cannot still be a cat; there is a lot of freedom for cats to be cats.

Consider now all the cats in a universe and all their experiences are contained in this overlapping intersection of categories that define "cat". Then any particular cat in that universe is simply "jumping" from one "cat-state" to another within that full-sum of cat alternatives.

12. Now the overlapping region of all possible cat-states is also a network of possible relationships between different cat-states. Every definite connection in that network between any two cat-states, both restricts and releases the possibility range for all the other cat-states. This appears to be the source of what physicists call "entanglement".

Example: cat-A lives out its life and only meets cats B, C, and D of the other cats. Therefore; except for cats B, C, and D, the other cats have possible life-patterns that have been restricted to never meeting cat A. However they are also logically released to being unrestricted in those possibilities that were logically incompatible with meeting cat A (e.g. living on a different planet to A).

Every cat-meet-cat event, every comparison of two patterns in this sum of possible cat-states, both restricts (defines the actual cat-interactions) and releases (defines the potential cat-interactions). In this way, a cat-meet-cat event is like a holographic representation or snapshot of all possible such events, because it effects the entire network from a logical possibility point of view.

13. It is possible here to gain insight on the puzzling phenomenon of how "what might happen" seems to influence "what does happen". A network of intersections of say different cats' life-experiences, giving overlapping regions of logically consistent meeting possibilities; means, as Richard Stafford would say; that some patterns you may see and some you may not see, consistent with a defined network.

Physicists talk about probabilities; i.e. statistical concentrations of intersections between things that could happen. Thus any "might happen"s seem to influence their outcomes because of logical consistency requirements in the network.


14. Half way through a Chess game, the probability of a sequence of three moves involves noticing whether some moves occur repeatedly in several of possible scenarios.

Such high 'action density' moves are more probable statistically, when all moves are treated equally.

Lacking high resolution; physicists at the micro-level can only talk of what might happen and exclude what apparently cannot happen (exclude logical inconsistencies). Alternatives interfere and cancel according to the intersection network.

15. "Constructive interference" occurs when, for example in the "all cats in a universe" example, a particular meeting of cats is all that's missing to allow a whole network of logically possible other cat meetings to take place.

"Destructive interference" occurs when a whole lot of potential cat meetings become ruled out as logically inconsistent due to a particular meeting's effect on the possibility network.

"Diffraction" occurs when an organized regular sub-network of cat meetings generates organization in the following potential network of cat meetings.

"Laser effect" occurs when a series of cat-meetings is such a focused section of the network of possibilities that the network remains focused in that region long after purely due to logical consistency phasing.

16. What I'm roughly depicting here is that the various phenomena of light, as described by quantum electrodynamics; is obtainable from the very nature of definition laws and networks of logical consistency, and density of intersections of possibility. It is possible that such 'laws of physics' are generated by the inclusion/exclusion nature of definitions and are already contained within the logical consistency requirements of definition networking.

Do the "laws of physics" describe the "Logical Consistency Analyzer" itself? If so, they tell us only that reality is logically consistent; but that also there are fractal dimensions of consistency.


17. "Explanation" either eventually comes up against straight facts; with no more terms-in-which to do the explaining; or it wanders through layers of categories at different levels. Essentially it involves straight facts (Existence), and the comparing and matching of two or more patterns.

This two-or-more pattern comparison gives "explanation" a 2-D layering aspect. As "complex numbers" are 2-D numbers ; explanation structures may be reminiscent of complex number discoveries like the Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

18. Looking at Richard Stafford's paper: He recognizes that a law of definition must not contain internal contradictions. Rather than say that humans are isolated from the outside world ; I would say that for something to exist at all, it must be different in some way from other things, or it would be some other thing.

So the boundary between existent phenomena is infinite by virtue of their very existence. To know you exist, means being aware of Existence; as to know you exist is to know you have a boundary.

19. R.Stafford, in his chap.1, refers to "reality, defined as a set of numbers" delivering a "mental image" of that reality via "our senses". He also refers to "alternate view of our senses" that delivers an "alternate reality" ; and a "fundamental transform between "reality" and "alternate reality".

My way of understanding this is: What if reality was "pigs can fly"? "Reality" would thus be an intersection of the two intersections; (1) intersection of categories to give overlap defining "pig"; and (2) intersection of categories to give overlap defining "fly".

Note there are many alternative logically consistent ways of having flying pigs, within the intersection of the category-intersections "pig" and "fly".

20. This thus delivers alternate views of flying pigs; i.e, "alternate reality". "Our senses" and "alternate view of our senses" refer to the sense-versatility that can see the alternate views of "flying pigs".

In other words "our senses" is a wide enough intersection of categories to permit more than one way of looking at (sensing) things. Such versatile "senses" involves two or more ways of being "senses", sensing in slightly different ways that allow different perspectives on things. So now you have two or more ways of regarding "our senses". Two perspectives of "our senses" thus gives the "alternate view of our senses".

"Our mental image" would be that intersection of intersecting networks of categories, that deliver an image of the logical-consistency object known as "flying pig".

21. The "fundamental transform' that delivers the alternative ways a flying pig can relate to other patterns, and still be a flying pig; is the phenomenon of intersecting logically consistent categories.

So long as logical consistency is maintained, the "transform" can be regarded as representation within the allowed margin of error; within the range of alternatives allowed in a category overlap.

This "transform" may be regarded as representational communication within permitted error margins. It represents the ability of the object to be seen from at least two perspectives; thus the object itself is "see-able" from at least two perspectives.


22. The very word "representation" requires at least two perspectives be possible; so of course the "fundamental transform" can be applied (it is just the transform of an alternative perspective). It can be applied, that is, to a communicable-by-representation "set of numbers" reality.

It is possible to show that the R.Stafford diagram in chapter 1 is in fact a pictorial representation of Schrodinger's equation! The diagram shows two triplets. Three concepts connected by three arrows.

It shows a concept, "reality", with a two-way arrow connecting that to the concept "alternate reality". Two one-way arrows connect to the concept "our mental image" having departed from the "reality" and "alternate reality" concepts.

"Our senses" and "Alternate view of our senses" are thus the Schrodinger 2-D weighted view (complex number weighted view) of a system.

The possible alternatives that are open to a system, as in Schrodinger's equation, are the possible ways of the "reality", "alternate reality" system to be perceived within allowable error margin.

23. In Schrodinger's equation, "rate of change in time" means another 2-D perspective of things. This is because "time" involves reference to a two-part pattern; before and after.

"Our mental image" will be a particular 2-D (pattern comparison) perspective from the variety of such perspectives available. This particular 2-D perspective is a reference (thus equates to role of time) from the point of view of another 2-D perspective that represents an alternate way of using our senses.

So the diagram translates into the Shrodinger equation, which is a 2-D weighted view of the possibilities of a 2-D or more system as seen in the mirror of a reference 2-D system.

24. R. Stafford's "Logical Analyzer" automatically contains the Schrodinger equation. This equation gives a rate of change (the amount that the network itself changes), for the whole of the network's complex-number weighted (2 choice) alternatives; per interaction (i.e. meeting of 2 sides) with an outside pattern (i.e. with the 2nd side: detector)(the meeting marked as 'time' by a third reference: scientist).

25. How can you know how much someone's possibilities and constraints change per Chess move they make? By knowing the rules of the game and calculating them. How do scientists know the rules of the game they apply the Schrodinger equation to? Because they defined that game with their own definitions, I guess.

26. So the equation acts as mirror that reflects the scientist's definitions back to him; but why nature makes a particular move as seen from the viewpoint of the scientist's game might puzzle him. Nature seems to choose moves that combine logical consistency with maximum freedom and minimum constraint. This tallies with the idea of "the least action principle" (minimum constraint)(inertia) and the "entropy principle" (maximum options).

27. Since interaction with a PARTICULAR outside pattern IS one of the network's alternatives ; the network jumps to a particular state of changed-network-configuration that relates with that particular interaction.

The "collapse of the wave function" is thus unpredictable, but the logical consistency is retained (predictable by definition). For example, in Chess, you can determine the "wave function" of alternative moves a player can make by definition of the game rules; but can not be sure which move he will jump to next.

28. The game of nature is read by assigned definitions of what nature can apparently choose to do; though nature can do something unexpected as one's assumptions about what nature could do may be mistakenly limited.

A limited view of a game may conceal possibilities and rules that are still logically consistent but look like exceptions to the mistakenly restricted view of the rules. Thus "castling" in Chess might seem like rule-breaking to one who did not know all the Chess rules, and had over-generalized them.


29. Interaction IS state-jumping; so, as "observation" is interaction, this collapses the wave function of possible scenarios.

The Shrodinger equation apparently gives the amount (mass) of change that occurs, in a network of alternative ways to match patterns, for each match with an outside pattern.

30. For example; when you make a chess move halfway through a game, some possibilities from before that choice now have gone, but some possibilities, not available before you chose, have opened up. This suggests a link with the concepts of "curl" and "divergence" from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields.

31. The way electric and magnetic fields push each other along can be likened to the way "chess quanta" (individual moves) carry two fields with them that push each other along through the game. These two fields are "at right angles to each other"; one is the field of constraints on available moves from a position of play, the other is the field of choices of available moves from a position of play.

Over several moves, the constraints and freedoms push each other along, each generating the other. All the properties of light, e.g. wave/ particle duality, reflection, partial reflection, constructive and destructive interference, diffraction, lasers, holograms; might even be describable by a Chess game model. Most of physics might flow from this model too; except that new boards might appear to accommodate the released pieces.

32. Thus a "chess photon" represents a position on the board (particle) and a wave of possibilities. Although the collection of possibilities changes for each move; a period of several moves may contain several "group possibilities" that are intact over that period.

This intact group may represent the player maintaining (conserving) his strategy over several moves, keeping certain options open. This gives his game inertia (mass of conserved moves, that is, rest mass). The rest mass, times group velocity (maintaining a group of options lasting a distance through the game, per other players moves) would give the momentum of his plan.

33. To convert the whole of his conserved moves (rest mass) to "energy" would mean releasing all those different moves "at once". But as they are alternatives to each other; to release them "at once" would require many superposed boards.

I guess if one regards the "speed of a Chess move in a vacuum (empty board) as implying the (cellular, quantized) board structure itself as a length times reference length (distance per time); then the board of 8 x 8 = 64 squares can be represented by "c". A square can represent Planck's constant (of Chess quantum jumps), "h".

By squaring "c" to get a "hypercube" (64 Chess squares x 8 (cube) x 8 (hyper)= many places to move, sufficient perhaps to cover all alternatives "at once". So in this model, E = mc squared.

-continues... (-Alan)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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