|
Hi Aurino,
Sorry about my slow response, I don't read this thing every day any more. I have a lot less free time now that I am retired and no one pays me to surf the web anymore. Paul kind of pointed out that problem when I first met him. Excuse me if I combine my responses a bit.
I love reading your comments: personally, I think you are one of the brightest people on this forum and find almost everything you say to be worth reading. I think you had a good handle on the scientific position when you were 12. You just never had the opportunity to work out the full implications of your thoughts.
**** Aurino:
i) No matter how complex your problem is, no matter how many real variables are involved, you can always propose the existence of imaginary entities whose values can only be known indirectly
ii) Failure to do (i) is what characterizes a system as random
iii) The power of our imagination is the only thing which stands in our way of doing (i) for any system whatsoever
iv) It is a serious mistake to think the imaginary entities we propose to make sense of random data are anything other than products of our imagination
v) It's extremely easy to lose sight of (iv)
vi) Scientists often resort to that strategy; no wonder they can explain everything!
****
An excellent expression of the true nature of the problem!
As to "http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/19784.shtml"
With regard to my posts, let me quote Goldwater "listen to what I mean, not what I say!" and I presumed I did know what :-) means. Yeah, Goldwater's comment can be seen as quite stupid and yet I think we all have an inkling of what he was trying to communicate. Communication is much more tenuous than people generally think.
**** Aurino: Basically what I'm saying is, the algorithm you have in your mind is great, except sometimes you disregard the rules of the programming language and the compiler craps out. As any good programmer knows, computers can be very stupid sometimes.
****
Isn't it rather the fact that they follow the rules which makes them stupid?
C:\Forums\Astronomy.net\Dick\message19746.shtml(99) : error C2065: 'true' : undeclared identifier
This is exactly the problem with standard compilers and I suspect that it will not be long before someone writes a compiler which will provide its own declarations. Some languages already provide default declarations but that is not what I am referring to. What I am suggesting is that the compiler examines possible declarations and decides which one to use by choosing the simplest declaration which allows the program to run. In order to function, such a system would need to provide for an alteration in the declaration and recompilation in the event of a crash.
I only suggested that scenario in order to convey to you the fundamental idea behind my work (which you may already be aware in your own way). We are not stupid like a computer because we can recompile on error. Look at the discussions on this forum; they are, in fact, no more than examples of all intellectual discussions everywhere. They almost always resolve down to the problem of defining something. Everyone seems to believe that the solution will arise from a careful detailed examination of the problem.
Paul has been trying to find the end of a piece of string where he can start his reasoning. Your comment, [Perhaps you could write your fundamental statement as "___ ______".], is absolutely to the point. That is exactly the issue I was trying to discuss with Harv. When it comes down to fact, no matter what we think we know, it is possible we are wrong. Mankind has progressed by thinking he understood what he was talking about and applying it to what he knew! Whenever the system "crashed", someone managed to re-declare some variable (change his perspective in some subtle way) which made what he "knew" make sense and we "learned something".
Over the centuries, many people have tried Paul's attack but all have failed for a reason you so eloquently expressed: "words always beg definition"; there exists no starting point. As Alexander parted the Gordian knot, I have cut through to the essence of the problem. I have solved the problem the only way it could possibly be solved: all at once and in its entirety. The rest of you (that includes everyone) are so habituated to the detail approach (inspecting the knot and trying to figure out how to undo it) that you cannot even comprehend my attack.
Because it is clear that the detail attack absolutely can never succeed, I have completely ignored the fact that there exists no defense to my mental picture of reality at all (mathematics included) and instead shown that the picture requires no defense (i.e., it need not be the "correct") as there exists no possible collection of information which cannot be cast into such a picture. No matter what one "knows" it can be understood as the consequence of the rules I have laid down (that is Chapter 1). The remainder of the paper is no more than an explicit demonstration that most all the ideas the scientists put forth as evidence of the correctness of their picture of reality are completely consistent with Chapter 1.
The net result of my analysis is the fact that any data at all may be so cast. That is to say, if you have a self consistent "story" which explains what you "know" your story can be translated into my representation. Now that presents me with quite a conundrum: exactly what evidence exists that your "story" bears any resemblance at all to my picture.
The fundamental problem is that my subconscious is an excellent translator and it stands between me and any interaction I can have with you. I have extremely strong evidence of the fact that the power of my subconscious to create illusion far exceeds my analytical abilities to analyze information. What is that evidence? It is the fact that I possess an illusion of order consistent with the idea of "cause and effect" which is in direct conflict with the fact that my analysis contains no cause an effect requirement at all! Cause and effect is, without a doubt, a requirement of the explanation only and not a characteristic of reality itself.
Unless you have the mental ability to comprehend a universe which does not require cause and effect, you lack the ability to comprehend reality!
**** Aurino: Your paper will inevitably fall in the hands of mediocres who will make all sorts of stupid claims based on a misunderstanding of its concepts. It's already happened as you are fully aware of, and again I'm including myself in the bunch.
****
No, I wouldn't include you as I don't find you making many "stupid claims" about anything.
**** Aurino: And that brings me to my point. A brilliant thinker has the responsibility of translating his clever solutions so that the mediocres who can't understand the solution can at least understand the implications, so they'll refrain from trying to do it themselves.
****
I am reminded of a quote from somewhere: "the only rule is that there are no rules". The only implication of my work is that there are no implications! The past is whatever it is; the future is absolutely and completely random and the only cause and effect which exists is in the illusion your subconscious produces to explain how the present (your state of knowledge) came to be. Your mental picture of the past is what is true plus the illusions required to make it make sense to you. The future is a mix of what you already know and illusions required to blend that with any possibility.
Have fun -- Dick
|
