Richard,

Let us begin with a totally undefined set of data. Next, let us transform the data by a totally undefined procedure. The general case of this finnished set is what we have as the input to our abstract modeling method.

Thus the model (which must be universal) can only depend on patterns in the finnished set.

You are confusing the original undefined data with the finnished set (the data after it has been transformed by a totally undefined procedure)! That is, your mental model of the model building procedure is entirely omitting the problems created by the undefined transformation!

It should be clear to you that no matter what asymetrys you (as God) were to put in the original data, I could concieve of a set of transformations on the data which would invalidate those asymetrys.

Given those possibilities, an entirely general model can not depend on any asymetrys to be in the finished set. If it did, it would not be general.

You are looking in the wrong end of the telescope!

Have fun -- Dick

• Your transformation is defined - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
  • Let me try again. - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
  • From another perspective! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:12 UTC
  • Or a third! - doctordick - April 27, 2001 - 19:34 UTC
    • Yes, I am defining my model as symmetric - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
      • Ignore the development!! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:52 UTC
        • Classical physics is completely based on rationality, except per - yanniru - May 1, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
      • A second issue! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 15:02 UTC