God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora About Aurino's Earlier Comments Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on July 16, 2002 10:18:48 UTC

I meant to post this before but couldn't get the website: (Re: Mario's comments)

Thanks for alerting folks to that stunning post by Aurino. It seems then that you have variables; you create new variables in the process of obtaining 'common ground' for your existing variables.

So Aurino's post is a consise description of Dr. Dick's discovery. Similarly, the traffic-jam analogy fits with it too: the two deceleration-acceleration jams are your continous variables (or Stafford's arbitrary sets of numbers); the newly created variable results from the common ground (or algorithm or Aurino's example-new-equation) of bringing the variables together in some way (making a MATCH)(doing a deal; John Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics is in there?).

(I'll add here on re-reading: perhaps the deal involves chosing which equation + imaginary new variable to match up with the existing variables?)

Aurino may have just described the process of creation via free agreements that bring variables together on common ground. The "imaginary" thus is the actual creation. The key is to be logically consistent.

(Here I'll add on re-reading: perhaps the creation is the whole structure: the variables, chosen equation (chosen from variable possibilities) and imaginary variable that brings the other variables together in the (imaginary?) equation.)(You gave a simple equation and an imaginary variable that made your starting variables 'non-random')

(Perhaps the creation is in the matches between all these elements; the act of building a structure of agreements being the act of creation)

In the example given; the deal (equation) seems to be already present (and so would many other equations be) as a way of looking at the variables. This suggests that what you get (as your "imaginary element) depends on what equation-perspective you take on the variables.

But there is something missing. What if the observer is part of the group of variables?

Then how you see the variables will depend on how you see yourself? The "imaginary" element will depend on your choice of self-perspective? The question is to figure out the scenario Aurino described, with the observer as one of the variables and part of the equation-solution?

Regards,

Alan