Thanks for addressing me !
Dr. Dick Stafford wrote:
>It is apparent that no one on this forum is capable of following my thesis save Paul
Maybe more of us could, given time, but are more interested in the philosophy than the math, having been motivated pragmatically that only a few practitioners of higher math are supported financially. Long ago, I had the aptitude and I can feel the wiring is still there, but not primed. I'm busy doing manual labor, petty management, and fretting about month to month survival, plus doing volunteer work in the community. I venture maybe 3/4 of the folks on this forum have, deeply buried, the aptitude for your Article's math, but Dr. Paul is apparently "tooled up" -- a highly commendable personal condition to have cultivated !!!!
I am humbled at present.
Dr. Dick Stafford wrote:
"I still state that what I have proved is that there exists no internally self consistent set of concepts which do not include the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them. This is essentially a proof that those rules cannot be violated and must be part of any rational explanation of anything."
If this is a fundamental part of your work, surely there is gain in reworking it. The phrase,
"include the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them" may be quite clear, but the word
"include" could hinge another 20 words or so.
With "include", you could be saying one of these
(which one or a different one?):
1) laws of physics can serve as a filter for nonsense. If a concept won't work with them, we know it won't work at all, except as a fiction.
2) our thoughts are all fiction; the real business is the physical processes which spawn and assess our thoughts to determine which will be sent to archives...which will further shape the material universe
3) Every internally consistent set of concepts which is true ACTUALLY INCORPORATES all the laws of physics as we know them, and this is a guide to the creating of excellent concepts for public policy and personal conduct.
Dick, your thesis has philosphical import with as much mathematical backing as other philosophies now dominating our world. Einstein's relativity has been explained in layman's terms pretty well. Maybe yours can be too. Even IF your math contained errors, so does the math backing various other philosophies. If you must give up, I know many of us bid you farewell. However, I have left this forum and returned about 10 times and noone hardly said a word about it. If you think you are far superior to me, then you might feel you could not return after saying goodbye. But I say,
"it raises the issue of fundamental miscommunication.
(.....)That second issue is the one I wanted to discuss with Harv; however, the concept seems to completely beyond his comprehension. "
I totally agree and miscommunication greatly interests me...including the biological basis which makes us want a vacation from communication sometimes,
and the mystery that part of the universe has difficulty making something clear to another part of the universe. It is a technical, structural issue as much as a personal, organic one.
I guess, whether he thinks so or not, Harv was being stubborn, or defending conventional thinking...I have no fear of being mistaken or being intellectually embarrassed a million times if I am truly in error. For if I recognize it, I will be a million steps further in humble recognition of the Deity's grandeur.
And while some might scoff, in our free speech atmosphere, silliness is appreciated as much as
practical genius, and I can blend in.
Maybe Harv was just fencing with you...although it's frustrating, difficult persons give us practice so we don't race to higher altitudes faster than we have mastered
the air at a lower altitude (pardon the metaphor, please). I think you've seen enough at that altitude....maybe he has too. I feel I have .
Thank you for communicating.
Fun Fun Fun! Mike