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
Thank You Harv I Figured Out Something!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on August 8, 2003 10:16:29 UTC

Hi Harv,

That was kind of interesting what you did to Dr. Dick's post. You tried substituting a different word for "knowable" and "unknowable".

If it didn't work, that is not surprising?
After all; if I substitute the word "cheese" throughout this website for "moon"; could be humurous!

Of course; if we all AGREED to replace the pattern of sound and shapes on a page we call "moon" with "cheese" sound and shapes on a page: we could.

But we would need to re-adjust a lot of other word-agreements to avoid contradictions.

Otherwise we might find our definition of "cheese" and of "rock" clashed?

Quoting me: "About hot coffee getting colder in a cold room:"

Harv: "This analogy is too simplistic to be taken seriously."

Richard Feynman uses a nice analogy of: if you are trying to dry yourself with a wet towel; you might get to a stage where wetness is equally spread between you both. The net "availability" of dryness has got used up. He uses this analogy to describe "entropy".

One of the world's top physicists, Stephen Wolfram; thinks the underlying structure of physics might be incredibly simple.

Why do you say it is too simplistic? Richard Feynman, in his book "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" explains in layman's terms what the most successful theory in modern physics actually is about.

And he says that it is "ridiculous": "we add little arrows on a piece of paper".

Idea:
Harv; I am in good company in my approach I think.

I like to decode gobble-de-gook and find the easy way! You could try this! You DO try this!?

Quoting me: "potentially when a new category "bumps into" (that is: it "counts") another category (a "hot space") you get the possibility of a specified intersection of the categories (just as the word category "car" bumps into the word category "vehicle" and they partially specify each other)."

Harv: "Stop reasoning using analogy, especially overly simplistic analogies. They are trite."

Idea:
Good communicaters of physics to the general reader make good use of analogies.

Curious:
A professional physicist wrote a book "Physics as Metaphor".

Quoting me: "If you add extra categories; an overall variety of three-four groups can be seen to
interact emitting and absorbing comparisons (photons). The structure of quantum electrodynamics and so on seems to be implied."

Harv: "Before you compare coffee cups to QED, please state what area in physics your Ph.D. is in. It should be in particle physics to make your case. "

Suppose you maybe have not read "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" (I read a lot of it) by Richard Feynman; or much physics books:

How to judge my writing?
Suppose that you can only judge me on mostly philosophical grounds; as you are say quite good at that...

But not having similar reading background in physics say, you are not knowing the stuff I'm looking at? So when in doubt, tendency to assume I'm wrong? But could assume you need to read up a bit?

You are arguably making actually quite a reasonable approach in certain respects when I think about it:

you know that people spend many years studying to become physicists.

You know that in the past it seems that reliance on experts appears to work. For example, relying on an expert pilot to fly a 747 jet.

You know that I admit I have only done one year of University level physics; and didn't do enough work to pass.

So you assume that; on basis of typical life experiences of comparing experts with amateurs: that I must probably be wrong or too un-qualified to take seriously.

So here's a thought: I appreciate tough challenges to what I write.

I see say a kind of explanation re: your response-style.

But what I ask is this: why not say just try follow the arguments themselves that I present? If they are wrong, show that. But just saying "it cannot be wrong" because of a blanket rule "amateurs cannot be right": I think that is closing ones eyes.

Why not be prepared for possible surprises?

By the way: I found out that someone who does not have a degree in physics, has got a paper published in an international physics journal. It is rare: but it shows it can happen. And guess what? It's very much on the trail of "Zeno's paradox" and quantum discontinuity and indeterminacy! I'm not the only drop-out who's on to it! Fun!

Harv: "Alan, if you want to present a philosophical theory that you think arrives at physics, then construct your argument as follows:

P1 Logical relations exist
P2 Mathematical relations exist
D3 'Counting' means indexing from 1 to n
.
.
.
Cx Entropy is optional

No more analogies please."

I am sure I can translate into your language.

Tell me: what do you mean by "logical relations"?

Do you agree with: "Ideas that when placed partly in each others context; so occupy some common ground, do not contradict each other? That is: when they occupy common ground; the DO occupy common ground? "

Tell me: what do you mean by "mathematical relations"?

Will you accept: first we must define "math"?
I saw a book that said "mathematics is the science of patterns". Is that O.K.?

Will you agree that the phenomenon of "grouping" is involved in math? For example: "2" as a group of one and one?

Will you agree that the group "3" DOES NOT SPECIFY which order the ones occur in?

Will you agree that the group "3" DOES NOT SPECIFY which way the "2" groups inside it are made up from ones?

Will you agree that "mathmatical relations" involve "comparing patterns"?

You say "counting means indexing from 1 to n":
Will you agree that although this implies a one-to-one correspondence (like the tribe that counted by picking up sticks one for each item counted); the actual numbers (like "25") DO NOT SPECIFY in which order the ones were collected up; NOR DO THEY SPECIFY in which order are the common factors or groups of ones combined in the overall number?

Will you agree that mathematics ASSUMES that the ones are equally spaced? That is, it assumes they are of equal size?

Do you agree that this ASSUMPTION; of equal-size of ones in number (e.g. it is assumed that the ones in 25 are equal sized); that this can be shown to be built up in a self-referential manner reminiscent of "Zeno's Arrow"?

That is:

Archer fires arrow at target.
First moment: arrow goes half way.
Second moment: arrow goes half the remainder.
Third moment: arrow goes half the remaining distance.
etc.

It looks like the
arrow never gets there.

In fact it does. The "moment"s were being split in two along with the distances; because each "moment" was defined IN TERMS OF the shrinking distances.

This paradox is now in the limelight in the physics world.

Demonstration:

Define number "one":
O.K.: "one".

Define number "two":
Paul might say "the group of all doubles".
But....?
One thing is apparent: it seems to be ASSUMED for math purposes that the "ones" that make up "two" are EQUAL SIZE.

So they self-refer. Each is defined IN TERMS OF THE OTHER.

That is like saying: An arrow is fired at a target. The distance is divided into two equal units in the FIRST moment.

Define number "three".
Paul might say "the group of all triples".
But...?

One thing is apparent: it seems to be ASSUMED for math purposes that the "twos" that make up "three" are equally spaced.

Further, it seems to be assumed that the REMAINDER "one" is ASSUMED to be HALF either of the "twos".

Like Zeno's Arrow:

Archer fires arrow at target.

First moment: arrow goes half the sum total distance.

Math:
Number definition:
First count after one: component "ones" are half
the sum total

Zeno's Arrow:

Arrow goes half remaining distance in second moment. "Moment" just got self-referentially defined with respect to halving distance.

Math:
Number definition:
Second count after one: component remaining one after accounting for initial two "ones" is half the remainder after the first halving.

Of course, you may complain that "the first halving" is no longer what we call "halves".

But that RE-DEFINITION of the first "halving" was made self-referentially by referring to the second "halving"; and the second "halving" was defined as no longer halving by reference to the first halving.

The very definition of "third" was constructed by the two "halvings" or "dividings" being RE-DEFINED as "no longer the first dividing" by reference to each other.

It's different from "Zeno's Arrow" in that here; the order of "which came first, the "chicken" (the second dividing) or the "egg" (the first dividing) is ITSELF DEFINED in terms of calling it "first" or "second".

The very definition of "first" and "second" is leaning on the very definition of "two" and "three"; with each defining the other.

"Three" is defined as from a second division of the total (so get three parts); but a SECOND (as opposed to a "first") division of the total seems to be defined as giving "three".

So like Zeno's Arrow: instead of halving moments when you halve distances:

we have: WERE halving totals BEFORE when you ARE halving remainders AFTER that NOW COULD have been the first halving IF the other halving WAS TO BE the second halving.

Guess what:

(THANK YOU HARV FOR GETTING ME TO FIGURE THIS OUT! )

That paragraph sums up so much physics! Particles going backwards or forwards in time; John Cramer's "offer wave", "confirmation wave" in QED!

Entropy is not just optional: it is optional that it is optional.

The "availability of heat energy" to do work
in my system of analysis is "availability of alternative alternative alternatives to do force x displacement component in direction of force; so availability of alternative alternative alternatives to define a freedom surface of uncertainty in direction of freedom surface".

You may need to follow my more detailed stuff much not posted now.

I end out with "entropy" as "counting"; and "counting" is something you can choose how you do it (you can choose what base to use)(WHAT to count for exanmple).

You can choose WHAT to count; and WHETHER to count it.

All I have to do is show you that there is a way of analysing physics that works that involves calling "entropy": "counting"; and I have made a case for equivocating these concepts BUT I AM VERY AWARE of the question of the idea (say) of possibility of making what they call in books (alleged) "fallacies of equivocation" and the issues surrounding this.

The fallacy of equivocation is where things are made equal that actually do not share same context (so are out-of-context, so are metaphors e.g.)

But in freedom maybe anything can equivocate inso far as MEET anything else because IN FACT everything is different, so the only real equivocation is "we are all equal in God's eyes"!

Regards,

Alan


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 1994-2021 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