|
Dear Alan,
Since I have more or less stopped contributing to this forum, I have had the opportunity, like an addiction, to read more of what has been written. In particular I want to apologize to you for not taking your work more seriously, at least to the extent of reading it.
Still much of what you say I have difficulty relating to. But I think I have connected to your concept of unrestricted physics, perhaps by removing some of the restrictions on my own thinking.
Here is something that struck me from a post of yours that is about to fall off the edge of this page:
". The pattern pi/4= 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 -1/7 +1/9 -1/11 and so on appears to map a situation where "every way agreement can happen" is considered, where every perspective is taken into consideration in producing an agreement; where everyone has their say on any proposed changes anyone makes at any level of the discussion. The whole "draft agreement" can be re-juggled at each level with the arrival of a new participant; nothing is determined it seems until agreed to, it is all open to discussion with any voice free to be heard and how much each contributes is not restricted"
Now what occurs to me is that the mathematical relationship for Pi, the basis of your argument, is not the only possibility. It is the optimal possibility. As we add more people, and really their opinions, to a discussion leading to an agreement, the value of the previous contributions to said discussion should be such that a decreasing proportion of the final agreement is made with each successive contribution. And best of all, each new contribution will counter the excesses of the previous contributor, so they come in at plus or minus values in each case, if the optimal is followed. That would be perfect for democracy and very in tune with the evolutionary process of nature designed and guided by God.
But more often than not, the process is NOT optimal. Well, it may be optimal with identical particles, but not with humans who are unlikely to ever be identical. Your process of reaching agreement is common to the corporate culture. Quite often, when a particular problem or presentation is addressed, true democracy is operative at the bottom of the corporate when some underling is given the problem and proceeds to address it by bringing in others to judge his initial solution. As more and more indivioduals are brought into the discussion, providing they are more or less equals, the course of the solution more or less follows your optimal route.
But when unequals are brought into the discussion, the optimal program breaks down. In the final solution, the boss may be as much as a 100% player. That is the case in the corporate culture where the boss, at any level, is a virtual dictator.
It is not the case in government where the boss is usually less astute than his staff. He would normally have less impact than in the corporate world except that realizing his inadequacy to confront intellectual superiors, he will ask at least two opposing camps populated with individuals of more or less equivalent intelligence to address the same problem. The procedure is about the same except just before presentation to the big boss, the secondary bosses will modify the solution so as to made it most attractive to the big boss.
So my realization is that physics is unrestricted if it applies to unequal particles. But as long as every electron in the universe is just like any other, a really great gift from God, the optimal, very restrictive solution will be followed in every case.
In the two slit experiment for example, as we build up the interference pattern from sequential detectionns of electrons or photons, we come closer and closer to the theoretical/optimal interference pattern following your pattern as illustrated by the expansion of Pi. But that is restrictive physics, not unrestrictive.
Fondly,
Richard
|
