|
Mike does not pay attention to logic. So I guess I have to spell it out for him. First here is Stafford's paragraph where he commit his error in logic:
"The point is that, if the symmetries are true than you must be ignorant of some fact. The other side of the coin, which Yanniru seems to have missed (I guess he just wasn't in class that day) is that anytime you are ignorant of some aspect of the possible description of an object, that object (from your perspective) will display a symmetry related to your ignorance: i.e., you will be unable to differentiate between the original object and one which is different with respect to the aspect of the description of which you are ignorant"
The key statement is "anytime you are ignorant...of an object, that object will display a symmetry related to your ignorance"
Do you get it yet. Stafford is saying that my ignorance controls the unknowable data.
For example, suppose that object were a person you had never seen or even been told about. Then you would be totally ignorant of the description of that person. That does not mean that the person then displays every possible symmetry.
Stafford is saying that our ignorance controls the symmetry of the world. If we examine any object in the world closely enough, it will lose all the symmetries it appears to have at a distance.
At a sufficient distance, any object appears to be a point with spherical symmetry. As we get closer it may appear elongated yet still have mirror symmetry. Close enough and all symmetry is lost. So as we become less ignorant, the symmetries we sense disappear. That's what Stafford is saying. The appearance of symmetry is in our perception, not in reality. (Except that Stafford defines reality as our perception- not something I would agree with)
But the objects of the world are not symmetrical, and our ignorance of them does not make them symmetrical. Our ignorance does not change their symmetries. Only the symmetry of our perception changes.
We know that complex objects can look like points at sufficient distance. The point is that the point is not reality-- because we can look closer and closer to see just how complex that object really is. Reality is that object in its full complexity. But Stafford defines reality as out perception of that object.
So his theory is not about reality, it is about perception. Even he would agree with this, using my definition of reality.
But then he goes on to use just two symmetries in his theory- shift symmetry and scale symmetry- by his own admission several times in recent posts. So what happened to spherical symmetry and mirror symmetry, or even exchange symmetry, or a myrad of other possible symmetries. He talked about several symmetries in the above post that he never used in his theory.
For example, he derives the wave equation from hie theory. Solutions to the wave equation do not have either mirror or spherical symmetry. Yet our perception demonstrates to us that from a distance we can see objects with both of those symmetries.
What he has done is to pick out the symmetries that allow wave equations to be derived. Then by treating data as binary, out pops Schroedingers equation, just as has been published in the physics literature by others.
--------------------------------------------
But Mike, you are interfering with my argument with Stafford and your comments are empty of meaning. You of all people should understand meaning. Yet what you say about me is not meaningful.
I liked what you did with the 20 or so questions. You just answered them without commenting on mine except to say that they were physicists answers. That's OK.
But when you make judgements on my work and my logic, often rather obsene ones like its all BS, then you in turn deserve to be judged. Its the Christian thing. Judge not lest you be judged. So far we judge you to be a smart sicky. You can change that judgement, but you have to stop judging others and stop being insulting.
|
