Um Dr. Dick...................
Quoting you to Harv: "Oh, but it is! If you take everything into account simultaneously instead of looking at it from a piece meal perspective you will find that global scale invariance produces no problems at all and in fact explains some rather subtle effects! If it were not beyond you to understand my presentation, you would see that."
I did something similar with the MATCH system (that Yanniru remarked on, noting my obtaining something like Feynman's sum of histories from scratch.)
(The idea was any object in the life of a universe
with a finite life; can be regarded as its "pattern-match self". At any moment it is the sum of all the patterns it related with till now, and all the patterns it will relate with. If the "match object" is so viewed, it is the sum of all its matches during the life of the universe. It is a density wave moving through "match" space. You can disregard "before and after" and just regard it as a localised partially differentiated item in the sea of all its pattern matches.)
Another idea is that of a foreign language dictionary with all words explained in that foreign language. Any appearance of a specific word will give some relations, taken from the sum of all its relations in the dictionary.
Quote: "...to worrying about the unexplained conflicts between quantum and relativity and what it all means! " I showed an idea to solve this (gravity-theory and QED reflect each other in the mirror of relativity).
Quote: "All I am saying is that a very important issue is being overlooked. And it will probably continue to be overlooked for another thousand years." I doubt that I am overlooking it. But you need to assume that you might have made mistakes; so be willing to face the music of debate, as you cannot guarantee your judgement of me might not be in error!
Quoting: "What do you mean? Just ignore the fact that your senses are part of your mental model of reality? And never consider any possibilities other than that your subconscious is correct? What will happen if everyone ignores that fact?"
In my "I wish............." recent post, I showed that you need to define "your senses". Suppose you mean "your alleged coding of input data"; it only follows that your senses MAY have juggled things; it is possible some patterns remain un-altered by this coding.
You need to define "your subconscious". And I would have thought that given your interest in "subconscious" you would have been more interested in the direct investigation and un-'sub'-ing of that so-called "sub conscious"!
Tell me: what happens if:
two people each have a dictionary in Chinese that gives all the meanings of the words in Chinese.
But neither of them know Chinese. All they know is the relationships and contexts and frequencies of the words with respect to other words in the dictionary. Could they have much of a conversation?
What if one of them also didn't know Arabic, but had an Arabic dictionary with meanings in Arabic?
Would their conversation settle on correspondences between those patterns that seem to match between the two dictionaries?