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 Hi Mike. Come On Dr. Dick! Don't You Get It? Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Alan on July 25, 2003 05:42:57 UTC

Hi Mike;

Quote: "If entropy is the amount of "bound energy" in a system:

Where's the "then" in this "if:then?"
And what if "not?" Is this definition a standard one in physics? I could look it up, but will you please give me the general idea first?"

I got this definition from your post.

The "then" is: then when I regard "energy" as "alternatives" the consequences of my argument follow that I gave; given the other definitions I used.

Quote: "I call it "bound alternatives"

which I call "specification"

Are you kidding? Okay, maybe you're going somewhere with this. "

I am not kidding; it works for mapping physics laws!

Quote: "but "time" involves specific generalisation?

So you get entropy in passing time as:

specified specific generalisation:

I see you're approaching this from a kind of set theory, aside from the baggage of speculations which are current theory. It's a fresh look, eh?"

Well, it may be fresh.

Think of how words are defined. "Car": what is "car"? "Wheels", what are "wheels"?

These two words might be called "categories", or "generalisations".

But where these two words intersect: you have something more specific: you have specified "a car with wheels" or "wheels with car". So generalisation MEETS generalisation gives: specification.

From Dr. Dick's paper point of view: you have a Dirac delta function; a jump from "car" category to "wheels" category; in a zone which is quantized as a single intersection where "car" is partially differentiated and wheels is partially differentiated.

Add more categories like "rear-view mirror"; "Ford brand": "vintage model"; "red": "blue"; "belongs to Joe Bloggs" etc. and you have a whole lot of categories that can intersect in various ways.

Where such intersections are exclusive (probably gives Pauli exclusion principle) and where such category intersections are inclusive gives your definitions a minimal structure. The laws of this minimum structure can be shown to be physics laws.

But it is a shell game: I am only defining things by what Dr. Dick calls "contact interactions" here; effectively the intersections and categories COUNT each other.

In reality, there is a lot of freedom in the meeting of for example "car" and "wheels": the car could be many different colours and models and the wheels many different types.

So a minimum structure of intersecting categories for defining things is about "nothing" in the sense that it is about "anything".

The equation E = m c squared has been said to say that: when you lose mass you gain energy.

When I define "energy" as "alternatives" and when I define "mass" as "freedom" or some might say "uncertainty" or "meaning" possibly say:

see what happens:

when you lose meaning you get alternatives.

Example: if I take the specification:

Ford model-T with red colour and chrome wheels;

and lose specific meaning by leaving the specification of wheels-type more open

you get alternatives! You get for example to choose other metals for your wheels, now you don't HAVE to have chrome!

Advanced theoretical physics?: Stephen Hawking talks of "nuts", "bolts" and "magnetic mass" and electric mass" : I call "specific meaning" "magnetic mass".

I call "electro-" as "generalisation; "magnetic" as "specification.

Why "c squared" in E = m c squared?

If I regard "c" as "comparison"

E = m c squared

becomes

Alternatives = meaning of comparison of comparison

which is obvious because:

a "comparison" is like two categories that COULD intersect

and a "comparison of comparison" is like two categories that could intersect; and THEN intersect with a new category:

giving a (category meets category) MEETS category

so a first comparison is ITSELF compared

so you have Chris Langan's idea of "conspansive duality" ;

and you have 3-D with "THEN" or sequencing laid down as a 4th axis

and I can show how quantum electrodynamics comes from this in accordance with Dr. Dick's ideas on "fourth axis virtual particle exchange" and my ideas of "the distributive law sees itself in the mirror", ...........apparently.

So E = m c squared

gives

Alternatives = meaning of comparison of comparison

....of course!

As the alternative ways you could describe a Ford model-T in my example are the scope you still have in your definition within the freedom of defining (or meaning) ("meaning" as "freedom for example to interact with other categories)) : you compare "car" with "wheels"; THEN compare your (car + wheels) with "chrome"

and the meaning of car + wheels + chrome

in SPACE-TIME that is in sequencing (which came together first: wheels , chrome, or car; which came second?

is in fact a minimum definition of "space -time" from a car + wheels + chrome perspective.

Einstein's relativity laws fall out easily.

Quarks; muons; all kinds of stuff falls out!

QED: to multiply : means holding a group as a constant; example: 3 x 2 involves holding ay "2" as a unit and timesing by three to give three "2s".

Adding: the distributive law specifies distribution of addition over multiplication:
5 x (2 + 8) = 5 x 10 = 50.

In quantum electrodynamics the roles of ADDEND and MULTIPLIER can be swapped over to give minimilistically say "every way HAPPEN can event" which they call "every way event can happen"!

I can show how QED is not only circular but is OPTIONAL; it is generated by the act of COUNTING and is a minimum framework.

Quote: "or; generalised generalisation (as two specifications give generalisation):

so: given "generalisation generalised" now gives:
"specification":

final answer is: "specification".

I feel GIGO speaks to this. One must not
rush forward to plug unverified data or findings into the next stage without marking them clearly as tentative. Otherwise, one may draw conclusions and forget it was merely an hypothesis."

It is plain English?

Combine two specifications; don't you get a potential generalisation: a new category? Every way those two COULD combine? Insight here on the role of what Roger Penrose calls "counter-factuals" (things that COULD happen)?

Combine two generalisations: you COULD specify (if you count only the "contact interaction"?)

Quote: "And "specification" is "bound alternatives";
so entropy CAN increase as "time passes" BUT ONLY IF YOU COUNT!

Entropy is optional.

This one eludes me. I think the capitalized letters need to be fleshed out before they even stimulate a sense of what you MIGHT be saying".

"Entropy" involves "specification" as it involves dividing up into groups. "Time passing" involves "specific generalisation" as it involves building a bigger group (a "time" group from specified beginning to specified ending)which is specific (has set initial and final conditions) yet general (between those parameters many things might happen.

So far no increase in entropy if you have only a beginning and an ending.
But if you COUNT your
you need a DIFFERENT beginning and/or ending to see that it is DIFFERENT; obviously.

So as soon as you "make an observation" you get a "collapse of the wave function" that is of the "ways 1 + 1 or 1 beginning and 1 ending, can HAPPEN (can be seen from adifferent 1 + 1, that is from a different beginning and/or ending, apparently).

So as soon as you COUNT your specification, your entropy; you have specified it AGAIN; by definition of being able to TELL THE DIFFERENCE between YOU and IT.

From a math point-of-view of sticking number-labels on to things; the entropy increases the more you "bump into it" by counting it.

But this is optional; if you do not stick a label on it; but meet it as is (LOVE, letting be; the Kingdom of Heaven) it counts you and you count it: as you judge, so you are judged; any increase in specification is a question of agreement?

Quote: "If you count: you get for example:
specification (or bound energy) goes to NEW SPECIFICATION (counted bound energy)
so an example here of how a physics law is OPTIONAL and is only "laid down" by COUNTING.

I think this could be illustrated by a chart.
Can you make a web page and put a drawing online?"

I wish I could put drawings on-line: a picture using the tracking of a toy car running across your dashboard in a traffic jam of toy-cars on your dashboard; where this is toy-car position is MATCHED with the position of your car in a traffic jam on the road: with such it is possible to uillustrate the ideas of tracking category intersections.

With drawings of Venn-diagrams it is possible to apparently show the structures in the periodic table of the elements.

Quote: "So a relationship between physics and math exposed here......
I can show this in stunning detail for numerous physics laws...

Well, don't let me stop you.

Physics laws are optional and can take any form; it's a question of how you count.

If you stick labels on things; you might get stuck...

Hence the step back you are taking. This much makes sense.

But if you count God first; nothing shall be impossible to you......................

Oh, yeah. But you were saying you were short of cash to answer some of my earlier posts -- couldn't afford internet. Has that changed?

do you see how the act of counting generates the LAW in a physics law?

It's as clear as fog on a window....too soon to say for sure.

"As YOU judge; so you are judged" it is said...

This was in the sense of being "condemned" or not. We are free to use our good judgement."

I wasn't thinking about THAT kind of judgment.

Yes I am short of cash..........

Hope you get some of the explanation or ask for clarification

-Alan