|
Hartley,
First, I would like to complement you as you seem to be one of the more rational minds on this forum.
I stumbled on my discovery almost 30 years ago. I spent some 10 years trying to communicate it to others and failed miserably. I gave the issue up as unimportant anyway and probably would not be doing what I am doing now except that I have considerable free time. What follows is roughly identical to a post I did earlier on counterbalance.org.
What I have done is entirely new to human thought. It is an attack on a problem which has never been attacked before (to my knowledge). New ideas are often very difficult to communicate because they are generally outside the common mode of thinking. So let me try to rephrase the situation.
When you use the word "reality" or think about "reality", you have some idea in your head. Unless we communicate, there is no way for me to have any idea what you mean when you use the word. When I use the word "reality" or think about "reality", I have some idea going around in my head. I find that situation to be a major problem. It bothered me though it seems to bother no one else.
The first issue is: where did that idea come from? I know I didn't think it up! Not consciously anyway! It was there before I was even aware that I could think; clearly long before I managed to achieve any measure of rationality! I suspect that you are subject to the same problem though you don't worry about it; you probably never even thought about it.
As I say, where did that idea come from? I clearly do not know! As I have said above, I did not think it up consciously! However, it is an idea in my head therefore I credit it's creation to my subconscious. Notice that I have not defined my subconscious. I have no idea what my subconscious is! I use the word as a catch-all for that source of all the information that my conscious awareness can play with. As I said, I am not aware of having created any of it: any of the information my subconscious feeds me.
Are you aware of creating any aspect of your reality? If not, where did the idea come from? Think about that for a moment! Most people seem to hold that their idea of reality is reality but even in that case, how did you come to know that. I see it as quite a leap of faith!
So, as I see it, my subconscious has foisted off on me an idea: "reality". As a conscious aware mind, I want to know what the word means. What my subconscious says to me is "reality is reality you dumb schmuck! It then feeds me some more information and says "this is reality!" Being a rational mind, I am left with nothing except "reality" is the information my subconscious feeds me.
Somehow my subconscious has created a workable model of reality. As I mention in my paper, it had to have done this from a totally undefined source of information. I deduced that it must be possible to do so: i.e., create a working mental model from nothing but patterns in an undefined stream of data. So I thought about the issue and how it could be done; a problem no one else on earth seems to have worried about or even have any interest in.
What I have done is to establish an abstract method of creating a mathematical model capable of representing absolutely any undefined stream of data. The method explicitly includes two very significant issues. First the model must be constructed without knowing all the data it is to represent and second the model must be capable of encompassing any possible additional data without being invalidated.
The fact that such a abstract procedure satisfying those constraints can be described is in itself rather surprising. In many respects, it can be seen as analogous to the invention of algebra. What is absolutely astounding is the fact that modern physics drops out like a stone. In this respect what I have done is, in many ways, analogous to Newton's introduction of gravity: that is it provides a much simpler basis than what preceded it.
I think a lot of scientists's believe I am trying to present a theory and examine it from that perspective. Because my results are not identical to what they expect they don't find it as useful. The important aspect as I see it is that my model is, by construction, impossible to invalidate. Absolutely any stream of data may be seen as representable by the model.
This means that God, if he does exist, could not possibly create a universe which would invalidate my model if he wanted to. My model is absolutely nothing more than a way of looking at a totally unconstrained mass of data. That is why I refer to the rules of physics as the consequence of defining reality (not the consequence of my definition of reality). I have shown explicitly that the definition of objects themselves automatically include the fact that they obey the rules of modern physics.
I am in no way denying any part of modern physics experimental results. All I am saying is that those results in no way support what Harv would call ontological conclusions. In fact, I would say that, except for a few minor errors, modern physics is absolutly true: i.e., it follows directly from the definition of reality which is true "by definition".
I hope I have cleared up something ???? -- Dick |
