Thank you for replying, Dr. Dick.
Quote: "I only post this response because you always complain that I don't ever answer your posts. Alan, I simply cannot understand what you say! Let us just say the whole thing is outside my ability to comprehend and leave it at that."
My number one complaint, Dr. Dick; is that given that the financial burden of my participation in this forum is severe; I am much dissapointed that for some time you have appeared to keep avoiding rational debate re: my comments on your work.
According to a textbook on "reasoning"; "rationality" is about the conduct of argument. For example, to be "deaf to argument", to resort to dogmatic assertions, evasion of the issue, talking off the point etc., may be considered non-rational. You can be rational to others, have been rational to me previously, I don't see it necessary to give up rational debate.
Before about August last year, you had proper two-way exchanges with me in debate (at Counterbalance).
From about the time you gave a particularly good explanation of your work (the Egyptian scenario); and where I figured out substantially what you were doing there; the most I ever got from you since then seems to have been an occasional rare one-off response; but no reply to any subsequent reply I gave- no back-and-forth exchange.
Yet your track record with other participants in this forum shows you cannot be as oblivious to the meaning of my posts as you claim. Your recent "Harv, You Might Read This Too" post showed that you openly acknowledged that you DID understand parts of my post. You even made the admission that I was "often right on the money".
When I replied to that reply of yours, the pattern that has occured since last August occured again: there was no reply to my reply. No exchange, no progress. Yet in my reply I acknowledged a key point of yours and said that it was precisely this kind of comment (that you had made) that was useful and permitted progress.
So here we are again, the rare treat (at great personal expense to me, in terms of how much a proportion of my entire 'wealth' it costs me) to have got to the stage of a reply from you. Maybe this time there may be a proper exchange? Unfortunately, I have to limit how often I can get back to people now, as the flow of financial 'blood' from me is too difficult to sustain.
However, I can reply to replies; but there may be long delays due to the heavy cost.
You say I have never defined what I mean by the words "network", "ingredients", "joined", or "connected". Fair comment. Progress can be made here. So often I am starved of such comments.
Before I address that, can I ask you something:
Have you defined what you mean by "explanation", "knowable", "unknowable", "data", "numbers"?
I seem to recall that you dismissed "numbers" as so obvious that no definition is necessary.
This is where Harv catches you in trouble.
I hold that whatever "number" is, it involves making distinctions. So I suggest "distinction" is a more basic idea.
Note here that you rely on "mathematics", but do not define this either. Regarding the foundations of mathematics, when "line" is defined as "length without breadth", we are still left with "length" and "breadth" undefined.
If you analyse the historical development of the foundations of mathematics, it turns out that mathematicians make deductions regarding relationships between terms that are themselves undefined.
Now, it appears that there is much that you HAVE NOT defined (the items I listed, e.g.).
I am suggesting that a way around this proplem is to talk about "definition" itself. How do you define "definition"?
Whatever "definition" is; I hold that it involves something very basic: the MATCH of two or more patterns.
(Here your necessary but not fatal? circularity enters: define "pattern" and I might just use the word "MATCH". That's O.K., look what happened: Definition is the MATCH of Matches. Here's an example: "2" is the match of "1 from its own view of itself and another 1" and "another 1, from its own view of itself and the first 1".
Here we see the role of "complex numbers" and the very definition of "number" itself appearing.
Mathematics flows from the very nature of "definition" itself).
O.K., "definition" involves match of two or more patterns.
Now, you can have several such "matches", and these might themselves be matched in various ways, perhaps call this next layer of matches: meta-matches. These meta-matches might also be matched in various ways, including that you might match a "match" with a "meta-match" (so the matches (or "definitions") can be matched together (or defined) anywhere throughout all the layers (layers are effectively like subsets, sets, supersets, etc.)
In your language: "joined" is "defined";
"network" is "definition involving two or more other definitions",
"ingredients" are "information" are "whatever you connect in a definition"
"connections" are "definitions".
My language is chosen to reveal the basic simplicity of what is going on in your work. "Something A" is "What exists", "existents", which you can define however you want so long as your various definitions do not conflict with each other (beyond allowed overlap in margin-of-error).
The reason for the phrase "musical chairs game" is that it greatly simplifies (and de-mystifies) what is going on. In the game "musical chairs", when the music stops (= what you call "an observation"), there are specific relationships present (some people have chairs, some people are without chairs)(two types of "definition" are present: person + chair; person without chair).
But one can imagine that "the music" is itself not sounds, but another juggling game of musical chairs. One can imagine a third such game, and that one is interested in those connections (definitions) that connect people to chairs within each game, and what definitions (connections) can be made among all three games.
The idea is that the three games are complementary: the total number of people and of chairs is such that all chairs can be matched to people, but not necessarily in the same game in which they occur. This gives us a closed system, it gives self-reference, feed-back loops, all that stuff.
Thus in this system everything is defined. But how and in what way these definitions are defined, involves other definitions; and logical consistency (avoiding double definitions) determines what other definitions are possible and what other definitions are not possible.
Since "definition" involves "match two items, giving a third item".
An "explanation" is a network (meta-definition) of definitions (definition involving at least two existents ("existents": your "data", your "numbers").
So any "explanation" involves connecting (defining) two "three-in-one objects" (as a definition is a "three-in-one object" as it involves a third viewpoint (the definition) resulting from bringing together the two items making up the definition).
So any "explanation" involves a FOURTH viewpoint (your 4th axis). In fact you can have many more axis; but the basic system can just involve different dimensions as it were on that 4th axis.
At this stage it should be pretty obvious how John Cramer's "offer wave, confirmation wave " "handshake" view of modern physics relates to this. And I hold that the symmetries I discovered (described in "inter-dimensional" DNA post) appear to match modern string theory in significant ways.
Further, it becomes evident how and why your discovery works; why it is that "the laws of physics" as represented by QED and relativity, say; are true by definition (because they turn out to BE definition, they are the laws of definition, the laws of explanation process itself.They don't describe reality you may say, they describe "description", but actually "description" is also an "existent", part of reality).
Rather than say God was bound by your work, I suggest that your work is bound by God; as God is not just potentially "an" explanation", God IS the boundary that makes explanation even possible. Your work is bound by the law of non-contradiction, bound by Existence, bound by God.
Your "observation" would be a specific definition connecting (defining) the definitions within all three games. Your "examined set of numbers" would be the examined totality of changes among all three games; your "set of numbers" would be the open-ended continuum of the games without marking the beginning or the end.
The above post is probably not 100%; please tell me what is wrong.