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
Some Other Ideas Why!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on July 19, 2001 18:24:07 UTC

Alex,

If you took the trouble to read and understand my publication through Chapter 2, you would see a very compelling reason for a 3 dimensional model of reality: a one dimensional model is too simple to provide any real use, as is a two dimensional model. It follows that a 3 dimensional model is the lowest dimensionality which has sufficient complexity to be worth using. And, since it is absolutely all one needs to comprehend macroscopic phenomena, there is no reason for our subconscious to go any further.

My position is simply that no matter what mechanism our subconscious used to create its model of reality, it would have been confronted with exactly the same problems and it quit at three because three created a sufficiently complex model to fulfill all its needs. You guys all think the model it created is truth. I say, that is just an illusion; however, it is, none the less, a very useful and a very powerful illusion!

Remember, what I am presenting is not a theory, it is an organized way of handling an enormous (unlimited) amount of data such as to avoid inconsistency in your analysis of that data; that is, a mental model of unconstrained information. Please read my post to Richard , Re: I look at your assumptions.

For your enticement, I will quote a portion of Chapter 5 (which I have not bothered to put on the web site because no one I know has managed to get through Chapter 1).

************

Part I -- More On Dimensionality:

In Chapter 2, part III arguments were presented that analysis would be more productive if our data were taken in sets of three and our mental model were three dimensional. We stopped there because the normal mental model accepted by mankind is three dimensional and our purpose was to show that the results of the fundamental constraint could be mapped exactly into what we perceive. Clearly, we could just have well collected the data into sets of four and described a mental model with four dimensions. We didn't do that because to do so would have served no purpose unless I could map the resultant model into rational physical experiments.

We are extremely limited in any attempt to design valid experiments within the 4 dimensional model above as our ability to perceive 4 dimensional structures is thoroughly blocked by our subconscious, the ultimate source of our perceptions. We must recognize that our subconscious mind is a very powerful analyzer: it is capable of finding workable solutions to problems we cannot even begin to state analytically on a conscious level. It is as if our conscious mind is a bed ridden researcher whose only source of information is a brilliant but stubborn and untrustworthy servant (untrustworthy as he often feeds us invalid perceptions - known illusions). We must recognize that our problems are not his. To him, our subconscious, macroscopic predictions are sufficient for all his needs. Since he has already solved his problem, he will proceed as if no difficulties exist in his solution. The fact that he delivers all data (i.e., our perceptions of reality) assembled as if the source were a three dimensional entity can in no way be taken to indicate that the original data was organized in this manner. To make such an assumption is to vastly underestimate the powers and abilities of our subconscious to organize information. That is, I have shown explicitly that such an organization of the data is an extremely convenient organization for predicting macroscopic probabilities in any totally undefined stream of data and thus tells us nothing in and of itself.

As I stated in Chapter 4, this is the reason we cannot trust our intuition when it comes to microscopic phenomena: what we call our intuition can be attributed to the power of our subconscious to analyze more information than we can even comprehend on a conscious level. That power is simply not available to us when it comes to analyzing microscopic phenomena. We are reduced to depending solely on our powers of conscious analysis. We have lost much power but, at the same time, we have gained the ability to consider higher dimensionality a consideration our subconscious just simply refuses to provide.

From an abstract point of view, if the above is true, why stop at 4 dimensions? It is entirely possible that some higher dimensional representation could yield a more rational picture. In fact, why not view the universe as one point in an n dimensional Euclidean space: that is, if we have n pieces of data, why not an n dimensional model. One immediate advantage of using an n dimensional model to represent n numbers in the observation is that we no longer need to deal with the problem of two knowable events falling on the same point; note however that we still need a background of unknowable data to constrain the knowable event to actual observation.

***********

In Chapter 5, I carry my analysis through to a closed form solution to the n body problem! However, unless you can comprehend what leads up to the representation of that solution there is no reason for bothering to present it. Standing alone it has no more meaning than Maxwell's equations would have to someone who could not understand the definitions of the symbols.

Have fun -- Dick

PS If you would like to understand what I have written, it must be taken one line at a time; it cannot be scanned and understood. If, one line at a time, you have any problems, I would be very willing to do my best to explain what I am doing!

What I present is not a theory! It is no more than a place to stand with confidence if you wish to analize the Universe: i.e., if you stand where I stand you can know exactly what you are talking about.

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 1994-2018 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