Hi Genie,
I do not have a computer and sometimes miss things.
I mistakenly thought you were one of Mike's many different identities at this forum when I answered your request for a summary of Dr. Dick's paper.
I have communicated with you by e-mail; I sent you Dr. Dick's paper. I think some progress has been made in allowing folk like me to figure out what he is doing in his paper with his detailed explanation of his "unknown data". However he seems to have made serious assumptions and perhaps errors. However the general idea may be fairly right: that the laws governing the assignment of definition (laws governing explanation-networks) in a "circular dictionary, self-referent scenario") may possibly deliver what we call 'physics" laws?
Also; it appears to me that "physics" is "that which is missing from mathematics" (e.g. mathematics involves generalisations known as "numbers"; "physics" involves being precise about "what perspective one has on other perspectives").
(I found a startlingly simple model based on superposed traffic jams; that apparently translates easily to his "sum over delta functions"; to matrices; I think I cracked the underlying "code" in his paper thus possibly delivering Simon Wolfman's proposed "cellular automata super-simple code of the universe" and Chris Langan's self-swallowing set).
(Essentially: 2 musical chairs games, the difference between them is a 3rd musical chairs game.
"A way of looking" at "a way of looking": consciousness.
No constraints; freedom; creation: Love.
Logical consistency; law of non-contradiction; one-off definition: Existence.
REALITY: Conscious love of Existence. God in Spirit, Son, Father.)
As I see it, the CTMU saturates Dr. Dick's paper; I was thinking of writing up an explanation of how that is so.
I just read Mike's answer to you; PLEASE do not be put off by his reply. His observations seem to me to be very perceptive. Understanding reality seems to require abandonment of anything that looks like ego, to a large degree. The idea is let every voice be heard; fear no criticism. Invite the toughest critics to give unrestrained (but as polite as possible while not sacrificing honesty) challenge to one's views.
I wrote up discoveries I made at another forum; and Luis Hamburgh answered my request to "put my essay to the sword". I had to dig deep to defend what I wrote; but I made the richest discoveries in doing so.
PLEASE do not be put off by Mike; if one seeks the truth then one need fear no words?
Regards,
Alan |