Hypography Science Forums: Doctordick - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

Bombadil, on 11 May 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

Essentially, yes.

Quote

You must accept the fact that they must exist in whatever universe you are considering because of the very simple fact that you are not all knowing: i.e., since you cannot prove they don't exist without knowing all possibilities, the very finite nature of your knowledge merely implies you haven't run across the consequences of their existence yet. It follows that what you are looking at may very well be a totally random universe: i.e., you can not dismiss the possibility.

Quote

By the definition of probability, the sum over all possibilities is unity. That is not an assumption, it is rather a consequence of the definition of the term probability.

Quote

No, I haven't “assumed” the existence of objects. What I have said is that, if a collection circumstances can be seen as not effected by the rest of the universe (essentially a rather common approximation) their behavior can be seen as an independent universe for reference purposes. From that perspective, any circumstance can be seen as “an object” with in infinitesimal time of survival.

Quote

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be talking about two different issues. The first is clearly some operator “G” which I guess (when you compare it to shift symmetry) you intend to be reorganizing the supposed numerical labels such as the simple shift given in
.
Any redefinition of those numerical labels is acceptable but, unless you can produce some specific consequence of that redefinition, what significance do you think it should have. Remember, the concepts being represented are the concepts deduced from the whole collection of circumstances.

Quote

The pasts are, “the information on which the explanation is based”. In no way does that imply that the past upon which the expectations of one party is based have anything to do with the pasts upon which the other party is based. Sure, it is possible that they are the same but what can you conclude from that? That is, such a thing is always possible, but, in general, such a thing tells us nothing about any required constraints on the explanation. Shift symmetry is another issue.

Quote

What you seem to have missed is the fact that two entities may have reached exactly the same explanation based on exactly the same collection of information (that possibility can always exist) but it doesn't always lead to a specific conclusion about that explanation as does shift symmetry.

What I mean by "interpret their solution" is that any solution of any problem may be interpreted as a solution to my equations if it is indeed internally consistent.

Have fun -- Dick

Bombadil,

Reading your response, I get the definite impression that you are missing the central issue of my presentation. I am examining the consequences flowing from my model of the universe and nothing else. In general that is a rather trivial issue! All scientists are interested in the consequences of their models so what the hell is different about my concerns? What is different is that I have taken great pains to make sure that my model can represent all possibilities. As such, the consequences of the model tell us absolutely nothing about reality: i.e., by design, there exists no reality which fails to conform to my model.

Bombadil, on 22 April 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

They must exist in all universes as they are possibilities in a totally random collection of information. They amount to a context which we may choose to think about: i.e., if we are looking for a collection of “information” (out of a totally random collection) which can be seen as “photons” (their internal relationships constitute a specific set) and we are going to ignore everything else (everything else is “context” to be ignored) then we are examining “photons”. They will exist in all sufficiently large collections of data. Their existence tells us nothing about “reality”, it tells us what we have decided to think about.

Quote

I don't understand what you mean by “it implies no further definitions”. I do not posses an all powerful mentality. Perhaps someone else might discover that it does imply some further definitions are also all incompassing.

Quote

You can not answer a question you can not ask! Asking the question implies you posses something you regard as an understanding: i.e., you posses meanings to associate with the numbers “x” used in the representation . That is “knowing” anything implies you are presuming an explanation of something.

Quote

You are omitting the possibility that “their” pasts may have nothing to do with one another.

Quote

I do not understand your perspective. You appear to be trying to work with some specific interpretation of those numbers “x”.

Quote

If at some point someone solves a problem and you can't interpret their solution in a consistent way that solves one of your problems then at least one of you is not interpreting their problem in a manner consistent with my representation. And it is more probably both!

Have fun --Dick

sigurdV, on 12 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Thank you sigurdV for pointing out something I noticed sixty five years ago (when I read a book my dad had bought). The book was George Gamow's book “One Two Three ... Infinity”. The central theme of the book (or at least the part I found interesting) was his explanation of Einstein's relativity which no one I knew seemed to understand. Being but a child I had no idea of the mathematical constructs of Minkowski's geometry and misinterpreted much of what Gamow said. When he said time was an “imaginary” coordinate, I thought he meant “make believe”. I connected that fourth “imaginary” coordinate with Plato's shadows on the wall comment on what we think we know. That is, the three dimensional world we see is projected out of that imaginary four dimensional geometry of Einstein's picture. With regard to the measurements on the moving train (Gamow's example) my reaction was, “Oh, clocks don't measure time!” (time is make believe). But their measure is proportional to how far we move!

I came up with an interpretation which made perfect sense to me. Things moved in that four dimensional universe just as we perceive of them moving in our three dimensional universe except that the fourth dimension was being projected out. If we are standing still, we are actually moving to the future in that "make believe" direction. Since I thought imaginary meant make believe, it never dawned on me that the fourth axis was any different from the other three axes. If we move, we are, in addition, moving in the three dimensions we perceive. Since we cannot tell we are actually moving (i.e., the central thesis of relativity), motion through space must also move us into the future.

The net effect? If we go a light year as fast as possible (essentially instantaneously) we will have moved into the future (in spite of the fact that our clock reads zero: i.e., we moved instantaneously) a distance exactly one year (that is the definition of a light year).

Work out the mechanics of the thing and you will get exactly the same results for any experiment which are given by special relativity. As a child, I thought I understood relativity. I didn't discover I had “made a mistake” until I got into college and discovered that wasn't at all what Einstein had in mind. On the other hand, my mental construct gave exactly the same answers as his did so, when it came to calculating answers to specific questions I generally used whichever picture was quicker. Sometimes mine was and sometimes his was.

I was never able to find a circumstance where the answers ever differed. None the less, one thing bothered me about my picture. I could never come up with any reason for that fourth dimension to be projected out.

When I was in graduate school (the first time I ever heard of quantum mechanics) it dawned on me that quantized momentum in that fourth dimension was a perfect mechanism for projecting out that dimension. It was my first year in graduate school that I actually proved mathematically that the two pictures gave exactly the same results. At the time I showed my proof to the professor we had for introductory quantum mechanics. After about four hours of arguing with him over minor issues his reaction kind of surprised me. He said, “well of course you are right; but don't show it to any of the other students, it will just confuse them!" Being a good obedient student, I never did. Truthfully, I now suspect my solution confused him.

Nevertheless, the fact that my picture had no conflicts with quantum mechanics seemed interesting and in many respects was exactly what led me to discover my fundamental equation.

So thanks for seeing at least a glimpse of the issue.

Quote

The centrifugal force is given by thus the velocity (which is perpendicular to has nothing to do with m. Its magnitude is constant and is in fact given by rω.

The units of omega in the above are “radians per unit time” which is RPM divided by 2π. Since π = 3.1415 and a meter is 3.2808399 feet, why don't we make the diameter 1.0443 feet, making the radius of the rotating clock about six and a quarter inches (6.2659”), a reasonably sized centrifuge. Then rω = 2πω in meters and is directly represented by RPM

The elapsed time (in the rest frame is one hour) the reading on the clock in the centrifuge at roughly 6.2659 inches is given by .

Solving that for “RPM” one has

or

where c must be given in meters per minute. That would be 60 times meters/sec or meters/min.

The final result is

Roughly, the answer is 3,273,000,000 RPM

If your clock weighed one oz. the radial force would be in ounces.
The “60” gets us back to seconds and “r” is slightly over a sixth of a meter so, since a ton is 32,000 ounces, the approximate radial force would be 557,944,200,000 tons. (I have done the multiplication twice but errors are easy to make so that might be wrong.) A rather strong force to sustain in that centrifuge

Quote

Because the clock is moving through ordinary space and thus it is advancing faster into the future! As I said above, the fact that “clocks measure time” is a total myth. Their measurements can only be compared to time when they are not moving. Even in Einstein's picture, their measurements are actually always proportional to “proper time” the “invariant interval” of his geometry, their own path length in my geometry. Read my posts, time is nothing more than an ordering parameter and, in my picture, it can be set universally (any rest frame will do) but it can not be actually measured; it's a make believe parameter convenient to calculations!

Have fun -- Dick

Bombadil, on 22 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

I think you have that backwards. If you find “initial conditions that don't allow solutions to the fundamental equation” then the equation is not general. That would be a specific error in my deduction. Or to look at it another way, that means the explanation could not be expressed in any language representable by a finite pattern of symbols (remember, in the final presentation, the language was no more than names for specific patterns).

Quote

In a sense that is correct. If you found some constraints which removed some of the solutions which satisfy my equation, that would tell you something about the universe. On the other hand, if you found some additional required universal constraints which I had not taken into account and then applied those constraints to my equation, you would be back to exactly the position I am currently in: all solutions would once again be circular.

Quote

Of course! And I brought that issue up when I pointed out that “what is” is “what is” is a perfect solution to everything. As I have said a number of times, when that supposed God told Moses that his name was, “I am that I am”, I suspect that whoever he was, he knew what I know.

Quote

Well that was my very point! The definition of a “living language” is that it changes with every generation. People guess what words mean and they don't always make the same guesses their parents did.

Quote

How can you know they are equivalent? That has to mean they answer all questions with the same answer and you cannot know an infinite quantity of information. Consistent interpretations to known data is not the same as consistent interpretations of all data.

Quote

You seem to miss the point that "all" is a rather extensive adjective! Please explain how you would propose to test such a thing?

Quote

Yes, and yet that conclusion can be in error. For example, Dirac proved that “wave mechanics” and “matrix mechanics” were identical (or at least thought he had). What he showed is that the mechanical procedure used by each to determine their answers was essentially equivalent, a somewhat different concept. Thus he came up with a new notation which embodied that procedure referred to as the “bra-ket” notation. The symbol <a| was a “bra” and |a> was a “ket”. In wave mechanics, was replaced with a "bra" and was replaced with a "ket" resulting in a finished entity which looked exactly like a matrix element. The world then went over to “bra-ket” notation which maintained the presumed correct procedure but laid aside much of the underlying logic: i.e., it was a consequence of the interpretation the equivalence of which was presumed.

What I show in my work is that all three are essentially approximations to my development although much of the underlying logic is closer allied to Schrödinger's work than to matrix mechanics.

Have fun -- Dick

Buffy, on 23 March 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

I have read a lot of your posts and very seldom have any disagreement with you. I had always hoped that my presentation would interest you more than it seems to have as I see you as quite intelligent.

I have only one complaint though!

Quote

Everyone seems to think that I am presenting a theory! It is not a theory at all. It is no more than a deduction from my definitions. That is an important issue and creates unbelievable problems when people simply refuse to think in terms of my definitions.

Quote

I don't disagree with that at all. I have tried to make that clear to Anssi and Bombadil (who seem to be the only people interested in understanding what I have to say) but have pretty well failed so far. I have never really managed what I would call a usable solution to my equation. What I have managed to do over the last fifty years is to show that many (if not all) of those theoretical representations of modern physics are approximations to that equation: i.e., I have found no evidence that science is not a tautology.

What I think I have shown is that Norvig is right. But that doesn't make his approach the best. In private messages, Anssi and I have been discussing the design of a computer program which would converge towards decent predictions of the future. That is not so difficult (I had written a simple version of such a thing maybe thirty years ago). The real problem in AI is to design a system which converges towards “proper actions”, essentially intellectual survival, a substantially different goal. However, that is the very essence of evolution and perhaps not what you really want anyway. As I said earlier, intelligence and survival are not exactly the same thing.

Doctordick, on 22 March 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Quote

It might be better to start a new thread with your questions. You can always paste things over from that thread!

Quote

Isn't that the central theme of life??

Buffy, on 23 March 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

Luckily, I don't have to be *practical*; I am retired and have more than I really want to take care of.

Have fun -- Dick