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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hi Mike

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on June 14, 2005 06:52:24 UTC

Hi Mike;

I think there are so few conversations here because this forum is provided free and without the administrator's generosity we wouldn't have it; but the time delays in having it moderated have lead people to give up. Maybe some other system of moderation would work:

un-moderate the forum BUT if anyone has a problem with anyone else they could click on a "moderate" icon and THEN it would go to the administrator to face moderation.
That way can have best of both worlds? What does John Huggins think?

Here is something I posted at another forum: what do you think?

(To Russell at Chris Langan's theory-of-everything forum: under topic "Reality Theory" subtopic "Causality")(

Quoting: "Reality is a "thing in itself", where the ostensible superluminal "qualia" connections are actually statistical quantum correlations" .

Ideas: (using math-free analysis; reducing definitions to single-step differences so any repeat of a concept requires splitting apart the two versions (calling the concept "2-dimensional" is one way)(this is "math-free" in that it removes category-building or "countability" by allowing concepts only to bump into each other directly with maximum space and minimum repeats)(conserve the max-space technique: get every way the bumping can happen = QED; don't conserve the minimum repeats technique (so let it go haywire; so allow only three potential repeats-spaces: get QCD)

(Have a bob each way: swap max-space in defining concepts with min-repeats of those concepts: get Nash equation? Maximum crunchiness: space contains one repeat only (= Einstein relativity: two categories carried) and repeats contain 4 colours only (Ahradsen lattices? Two carries of categories: Feynman path integral; quantum mechanics: the mechanics of meeting?)

(Don't have a bob each way: keep maximum space in defining concepts separate from minimum repeats of the concepts: get a space encoded into the repeats (flexibility in assigning value: matrix algebra: string theory as least repeats is none; none plus space = something extra defined only by context (so by the way the concepts meet)(so they line up)(get a potential number line)(a string potential).
Get a repeat encoded into the space: uncertainty in defining space: curvature of space: a "black hole": theory string: that is: alternatives waiting for new information: set theory (defined limits on the space)(imaginary category)(a fixed background i.e. quantum gravity, loop (as to define a fixed background you have to go outside the system).

Category = qualia; example: the category "sheep" delivers the quality of "being a sheep". It is already "superluminal" (beyond shedding light on sheep") as it is the boundary of defining sheep within whatever limits are given.

A superluminal "qualia" connection is a categorical "category" connection.

The "" are most appropriate here; as one cannot define "category" twice without building in a connection (between two perspectives on category).

So the phrase "superluminal "qualia" connections" becomes "connection connections".

One cannot have twice defined "connection" without 2-dimensions on "connection"; but since the second appearance of the word "connection" was in the plural; the difference can be in scale (plurality).

"connection connections" =
the 2 dimensions required to twice define "connection" has room in the plurality of "connections"; so have two ways to define plurality:

plurality by: connection + connection = connections

plurality by: one of the words "connection" is given as "connections".

To keep these forms of plurality apart:

requires probe ability amplitudes!

Two ways of defining "2":

So any quantum correlations (meeting correlations)(parallel processing)(syncronisation) is only statistical (requires a third category that in the act of bringing the two ways of defining "2" together, keeps them apart (as individual items on a list).

Example: Define "2" by "land craft; sea craft" one way; define "2" by 300 horse-power engine ; 400 horsepower engine; other way.

Meeting: both crafts have engines.
Meeting correlations: both engines have horse-power ratings.

The engine horse-power ratings are statistical (because they are different by requirement of being "2": the menu of options "assign a horse-power rating to..." via-a vie the menu of options "assign a craft-type to..." is statistical (is a question of making whichever match-up you want to (either craft could have either horse-power engine).

This "up to you" aspect reveals the "mechanism of free will" you talked about!"

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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