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 A Little Goes A Long Way Luis Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on September 6, 2002 05:53:46 UTC

But Luis;

Maybe he put a game in there but made it overly complicated?

I reckon you maybe can derive the "laws of physics" from the question "Does 1 + 1 really = 2?"

"Physics" appears to be "precision about perspective"; thus may be that which is missing from mathematics (from math which uses generalisations called "numbers").

If the basic game is 3 interelated games of musical chairs; you'll find it in a lot of places.
I think dr. Dick's paper makes it harder than it needs to be. He seems to have over-complicated things; partly necessary I guess to mirror the complicated modern equations of physics.

It is known that Schrodinger deliberately made his wave equation look more complicated than it needed to be because otherwise it would have looked embarassingly simple! I hope Dr. Dick tries to find a simpler system; he said he hadn't found one so far.

A tautology is a self-swallowing set: the set of operations e.g.

think of a number (any number)
double it (2n)
add 40 ( 2n + 40 )
divide by 2 ( 2n + 40 / 2 )
subtract 20 ( (2n + 40 / 2 ) - 20 )

The operation "double it" swallows the operation used later of "divide by 2";
that is these operations cancel out.
The operation "add 40" is swallowed by the sum of operations: (a) "divide by 2" and (b) "subtract 20". (I know "duh" you may think but I spelt it out)

Now; Dr. Dick claims to have found a particular group of operations; that are allegedly tautological; that involve "a summation of delta functions" involving so-called known and unknown data (unfortunate terminology I suspect).

He claims that his operations; are characterised by pattern-structures that match much of the known laws of physics.

Now; you could start with everything in a set. You could then look at "everything minus 1 item".
You could then look at "everything minus 1 item minus 1 more item".

At this stage the question of "order" or "direction" appears: which of the two items did you take away from everything first?

Maybe this is the start of another way of obtaining his patterns.

If his paper is, as he has said, "about the assignment of definitions"; then there should be a pretty easy way to map the ideas.

-dolphin