Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Communication Isn't Over Till It's Over.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on April 26, 2003 21:56:58 UTC

Why yes Richard,

I certainly do make that assumption. And, if you look at paragraph four of part three of chapter 1 you will find this specific sentence on that subject:

What is of significance here is that, under this representation, no assumptions (other than that it be a communicable concept) have been made concerning the true nature of "reality".

So you are absolutely correct and I have gone to lengths to state the existence of that assumption on many occasions. I don't understand your glee in pointing it out as I have never made any attempt to hide it.

I think that I am unable to communicate the problem I am solving because, as far as I can tell, none of you can comprehend the possibility that your mental image of the universe could be in error so, as far as you see it, there is no question to examine. Now I could certainly be wrong about that but, if that is the case, why is it no one will give me an explanation (other than Alan) as to how a child comes to know so much so quickly. Where are the authorities on how that mechanism functions?

You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think!

****
Yanniru: The irony is that you do not seem to be able to communicate the problem you are solving. At least it is over my head. Is that info then outside the scope of your model?

My dreams are commnicable. So your model must apply to my dreams. Yet they contain behavior outside the laws of physics, and presumably outside the scope of your modelling?? That's a question.

Likewise there are experiments such as the EPR experiments that are outside the scope of the physics that derives from your model. Is entanglement part of your model?
****

Right here you are pointing out a phenomena which I specifically complain about in my paper. Since our mental model of reality has been created by our subconscious prior to any conception of conscious policing of our thoughts, we certainly cannot guarantee it is logically consistent. Oh, I will admit that the capabilities of our subconscious far exceed the capabilities of our conscious minds: our subconscious mind can solve problems in a fraction of a second which we cannot even begin to define on a conscious level. I will trust my intuition over conscious contemplation any time my survival is in question; however, I am fully aware of the fact that it does make errors. Any animal can make what my wife and I call "poor squirrel decisions" (you know; those spots on the street!) but that doesn't mean we don't give our life over to our intuition. Anyone who has any sense at all knows that logical deduction is far to simple a procedure to provide answers to any but the simplest questions which can be asked. Questions which depend on the bare minimum of important factors.

It may be fast and dependable, but that doesn't mean it is always correct (if it were there wouldn't be any such thing as a "poor squirrel decision".

Go read paragraph 9 of Chapter 1:

I am of the opinion that we make the mistake of relegating the problem of miss-perception to parlor games. Against all evidence to the contrary, it is the standard assumption of the scientific community that our perceptions are absolutely and incontrovertibly correct. In all cases, our perceptions are taken as "Truth" unless we can absolutely prove they are in error. In actual fact it seems much more rational to assume our perceptions are in error until we can prove they are correct!

I have discovered a logical procedure which can model a collection of random data in such a way that I can map that model into an illusion which is isomorphic to the mental model of reality humanity seems to hold as valid. The advantage of my analytical solution over the common subconscious solution is that my solution can be followed step by step and thus can be investigated for error. The clear advantage of the common subconscious solution is that it covers problems far too difficult to lay out on an analytical basis.

So yes, there are many problems which your subconscious handles quite well ("well" being a rather subjective qualification) which cannot even be expressed analytically. Communication is actually not a simple problem.

Sometimes, if the issue is not life threatening, your subconscious will take the easy way out (evolution tends to weed out those who take the easy way out in a life threatening situation). As I commented to Aurino, the concept of "a liar", or "he's crazy" or even "it's gibberish" provides very convenient mechanisms for avoiding thought on a subject while seeming to maintain an internally consistent world view.

Now, dreams are an interesting case. I have a very strong suspicion that "dreams" are a category used by the subconscious to stick experiences which it cannot make sense of (another of those "easy ways out" solutions). I have at no time claimed that our subconscious creates it's mental image via the procedure I propose, all I have claimed is the fact that we have a mental model implies a solution is possible.

I also note that in all of your complaints, you totally ignore the constraint that all information must be in the communicable message. When you think of your dreams, there is considerably more information influencing your thoughts than the dreams alone! That is why I call my paper "The Foundations of Physical Reality"; if all possible information must be included in the analysis, what other name would you give to the thing being analyzed besides "the universe" or "reality"?

****
Yanniru: You say that your model does not make predictions, and then say that many of the laws of physics come from it- actually most of them. But the laws of physics can make predictions. How is this not a contradiction?
****

I don't find it to be a contradiction at all. The contradiction is entirely in your belief that physics makes predictions. It no more makes predictions than does astrology.

If you take billions upon billions of pieces of information and organize them into thousands upon thousands of specific similar categories, the probability that a new piece of information will fit into one of those categories rises as you continue your organization with more and more additional information. You can call that phenomena "prediction" if you wish but I don't think the scientific community would agree with you. Of course, I could very well be wrong!

Finally, let's talk about the issue of entanglement. Entanglement is nothing more than a futile attempt to patch up inconsistencies in the currently accepted picture of the universe held to be unquestionably valid by the twentieth century authorities. Why do we need it? It is required because Einstein's space-time geometry does not allow unique definition of simultaneity. If the universe is actually constrained to conform to Einstein's space-time geometry, then causality requires "entanglement". This can be easily proved. Now the concept of causality is absolutely required by any explanation through the very nature of explanation itself.

We cannot question Einstein's solution to the problem confronting us my Maxwell as Einstein is a god. So entanglement is the only solution to the difficulty.

If you go and look at my work, you will see that the proof that equation 1.27 is equivalent to the four constraints given as equations 1.25 is valid only for one particular coordinate system. (The proof follows directly after equation 1.27.) That preferred coordinate system is shown to be analogous to the "center of mass system" in classical physics. Since, up to that point, none of the common concepts of physics have yet been defined (other than position and time), I choose to "define" that preferred system to be called the "center of mass" system.

It follows that none of my solutions to equation 1.27 (the rest of the paper) in the following chapters are valid except in the "center of mass" system of the universe. If that is true, the problem of entanglement just never occurs. What you must understand is that I am saying nothing about the universe here; I am only saying that, if you wish to analyze any phenomena via solutions to my equations, you are constrained to a specific well defined frame of reference.

The problem of entanglement is actually one of the difficulties between relativity and quantum mechanics. Go look at

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm

That is an excerpt from a paper I wrote in 1995 (publication was of course rejected by the authorities). At any rate, there is almost no mathematics in the excerpt. Harv, I think even you ought to be able to follow it.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins