|
Hi Yanniru,
I will comment on your post as it is always possible that a breakthrough might be achieved and if not I think others will benefit. I think you are too imbedded in your own mental model to comprehend what I am doing.
****
Yanniru: The various approximate limits, by which you ascertain the meaning of the symbols used in the derivation, are then views of the model from different angles. I said that giving meaning to the symbols in this way is an acceptable interpretation of the math. But the math stands alone and we are actually free to give the symbols any meaning we like.
****
Yes, and when one gives the symbols meaning, one is creating a mental image. You need to look at the mental image I have created.
****
Yanniru: I do think there is what you call a pipeline and that each pipeline is individualized. So I can go on to the rest of your exposition:
****
So your answer to questions #1 and #2 are "Yes" and "No". Thank you, that is a beginning.
****
Yanniru: That is not my definition of reality. The source end is limited by what we can sense, or experimentally detect.
****
Here you lose sight of the situation. You can only "detect" or "sense" things which are part of your mental image of reality. To suggest that you can perceive anything directly from the source is to deny the existence of the pipeline. To break this you must show a way of directly knowing reality without using your perceptions. Dark matter is part of your mental image; motion of stars is part of your mental image; mass and energy are entities defined in your mental image.
Thus it is that the output of the pipeline is what is "detectable reality", and I agree, it may be but a small fraction of what really exists. What really exists is the source of the pipeline!
By confusing the two ends of the pipeline, you confuse what I am doing. Certainly my design of an analytical pipeline is a completely adhoc step. I have created a mental image from the output of the pipeline by defining Set #2 to be events in a four dimensional space. This may be a very simple minded and some might believe a worthless mental image of reality but it is a mental image none the less. Once one has a mental image of reality, then one can begin to talk about "Detectable' reality" and "properly designed experiments". These things can only occur within a mental image. Before one can design an experiment, one must understand the mental image being used.
The rest of your complaints seem to be about "how I managed to conceive of this mental image" and not about how well it functions as a pragmatic mental image. How come others can use what ever mental image they like and your complaints go to inconsistencies in their mental image of the universe and not to their development of that image? Clearly, that is because they haven't told you how they came up with the image 'cause it just popped out of their head'! Forget where my mental image came from. If you are going to complain about it, show an experiment where that mental image fails to correspond to what you discover in your experiments. You can't do that because you fail entirely to comprehend the mental image itself.
The mental image created by my analytically designed pipeline is of a universe consisting of a collection of points in a four dimensional space which, taken as a whole, obey my fundamental equation. That's it Yanniru, the whole universe at once! Not pieces and parts of it, the whole thing. In order to understand what one is to expect for a piece or a part, you need to make assumptions about what the rest of the universe is doing. That is what the stuff past chapter 2 is all about. Check out chapter 3 where I construct a clock in order to see exactly how a clock would appear to function in a universe conforming to that mental image.
For you to come up with experiments in your mental image which you think violate the mental image I have presented, you first have to establish the objects you want to work with in my model. As soon as you set up those objects, you have introduced all kinds of asymmetries into your experiment. Just as when you set up detectors in your mental image, you establish exactly the same kinds of asymmetries. As you say, the process of locating the detector is devoid of symmetry.
****
Yanniru:
---------------------------------
"What is important is that I have made no constraints at all on Set #1. That means Set #1 may be absolutely any communicable concept of anything! Set #2 is always a possible way of perceiving it. "
No. I believe that by the time we get to an array of data sets in a properly designed experiment, as discussed above, we have assigned a great deal of objective meaning to the input of the pipeline. All other experiments should be neglected in the determination of 'detectable' reality.
****
You have assigned meaning to the input of your pipeline as, in your mental image, (except for illusions) what comes out is an exact image of what came in. In your head there is no difference between your perceptions and reality (except for known illusions).
****
Yanniru:
Wow. You just assumed what reality is at the input of the pipeline. Why bother to do any experiments if you already know everything.
****
Yeah, I assume reality is the ultimate source of everything I know. Just where the hell do you think your information comes from?
You have no idea about what I am doing that is why you claim that I have said nothing at all about the design of the pipeline.
****
Yanniru:
The nonlinear aspects of nature such as shock waves or BEC effects are not included in your derivation.
****
Are you trying to say that a collection of events moving around in a three dimensional space under Newton's laws cannot generate shock waves? In the physics courses I took, the mechanisms we used to generate those shock waves were directly developed out of a bunch of point objects interacting like a gas. It is clear that you have utterly no comprehension of my mental model.
****
Yanniru:
The whole idea in investigating 'detectable' reality is to eliminate the pipeline effects. Otherwise the experiments are deemed subjective and not reliable measures of what is real.
****
That is because your mental image of the pipeline is that it does not exist, in spite of your allegation in the opening that you believed in my pipeline. Either you do or you don't! I think you don't understand what I mean by that pipeline; I mean it is that the mechanism of perception which cannot be examined because it requires perception to make examinations.
I do not hide you because I think you bring up misunderstandings that very many people make. If I can not clearly express these ideas so that I am not misunderstood, then it is a failing on my part. On your remarks, I am not in your head so I have no idea what is going on there. My mental model of the universe has you doing something (I know not what) which changes reality in some way (again, in a way which can not be examined). Some aspects of reality (associated with that part which is "you") become source information for my pipeline. Now, the output of my pipeline (the mental image I will work with) is another matter entirely; it contains things to which I attach the label "Yanniru's remarks".. In that mental image there is a guy in Boston who is a member of the astronomy net and makes posts which I can read. The existence of the pipeline is fundamentally beside the point and has nothing to do with "objective examination" as no examination of the pipeline is possible.
All objective examination takes place within the mental image of reality. What it consists of "in reality" is of no real consequence as it is impossible to examine and thus impossible to either support or refute. (By the way, I am seriously considering hiding Harv as his only interest seems to be to deflect attention to this issue which is trivial and has absolutely nothing to do with my work.)
****
Yanniru:
I am essentially saying that if you cannot measure it with an objectively designed experiment, it has no meaning in physics. Then ascertaining the meaning of your analysis on that basis, I think your analusis has real meaning. We just disagree on what the meaning is, which in a sense in a difference between our respective pipelines.
****
No, you misunderstand what I mean by the term pipeline. In my head, the pipeline is an unexaminable entity which must logically be a part of our mental image and, being totally outside examination must be left open (as a conceptual entity). As such, it must be allowed that absolutely any conceivable procedure could be going on in that pipeline. Since anything conceivable could be going on there, all illusions are possible. You are saying that I am making a mistake! Essentially you are saying that your perceptions are in direct contact with reality (except for some illusions you know about).
Your position is exactly that taken by the entire scientific community. That fact is what I am complaining about. The common scientific position is that, if absolutely any conceivable procedure can be going on in that pipeline, then everything is illusion. That is exactly why they don't want to look at it. My position is that they cannot prove that and it is an indefensible assumption. To place anything above examination is to scuttle rational science. In my opinion that is exactly what they have done.
I know you do not understand the construction of my analytical pipeline; however, let us presume for a moment that you do understand it. As constructed, the source is defined to be reality. Let us throw in another pipeline (of completely random construction) and let its source be reality. Now, let its output be the input to my pipeline. Now the source of my analytical pipeline is no longer reality but rather some unknown distortion of reality. The output of my analytical pipeline will still be a collection of points moving around in a four dimensional space and obeying my fundamental equation.
The point is that absolutely any conceivable procedure can be going on in that pipeline and one can still apply definitions to aspects of the output (label set #2) such that what we call physics is true. In fact, once realizing that absolutely anything can be going on in that pipeline opens ones eyes to things which are just not possible in the conventional mental image of the universe. The problem is that we can not even begin to talk about those things until my analytically developed mental model is well understood.
And Richard, I have no intention of being unfriendly to anyone and I am sorry if I am sometimes abrupt.
Have fun -- Dick |
