Lazlo Toth

So, are you saying that if someone comes up with a theory to explain the data after its been measured that the theory is by definition invalid? But I thought you were saying that theories that do not have data aren't valid. Are you saying all theories are invalid? Or are you saying by having a theory that the empirical data will change, or make the equations incorrect? Also, as I interpret it, F=ma, is the theory, and all data seems to agree with it except at near light-speed or at quantum scales, but the equation is the theory, so how is it that the equation becomes incorrect? Obviously at the extremes mentioned its better to bring in the quantum and relativistic refinements of the F=ma to match the observed data at those scales, but all those equations always work, don't they? Are you saying the equations are wrong? Do you know of data where they are wrong? I guess maybe I'm not following. Lazlo

My English professors always pounded into me: "Define your terms!" So I guess I have been deluded into thinking that is important. Are all definitions fuzzy? Are fuzzy definitions useless? I think I know what a dog is when I see it. It has four legs, hair and it barks. I know that a wolf looks like a dog and doesn't bark. I guess those definitions are fuzzy, but I think I can usually tell the difference between a dog and a wolf, and since other people use these same definitions, usually when I call something a dog, most people will agree with me. Even DNA sequences are fuzzy, but you could come up with rules for analyzing them that would always lead you to correctly conclude that an animal was a dog or not, right? I guess my question is that the word direction has several meanings according to my dictionary: "being directed by a person or force," "a set of instructions," "going to a specific place," "a heading", "a goal or purpose." These seem to be a bit different, don't they? I guess I am happy with the notion that the Universe is "heading someplace," but I know some people might not agree about it having a "goal or purpose." I can see how they might be concerned that you were trying not to define which meaning you mean by it because later you would say "but you said you agreed that the universe has direction so you already agreed that it has a goal or purpose." Wouldn't they be right to be concerned about that? Would it be possible to use one of these dictionary definitions? Lazlo

Oh and I was reading this part again: Doesn't that mean that anything that opens our subconcious mind will reveal the intelligence of the universe? I've heard that that's what that Dianetics stuff is supposed to do. And of course, a lot of my contemporaries read Carlos Casteneda and took lots of illicit substances back in the 60s: some of them became much smarter after, and while there were clearly some bad side effects of LSD, I don't know anyone who stuck to smoking marijuana who suffered very much, but they're much more thoughtful and contemplative than most other folks I know. Also psychotherapy seems to make people clearer about things. Shouldn't we promote these activities more? Lazlo

Okay, so I think what you're saying is that intelligence is not actual facts, it is interpreting meaning. But doesn't that mean that because of those physical interactions that the interpretations are false? And if its only in the interpretation where do the facts and knowledge come from? I mean, what I guess you are calling "true" intelligence, not all those false conclusions we draw because we can't see things as they are? Are you saying that there are no facts to know? So, are you saying that the "true" intelligence behind the universe is emotion? And there's a fake and a real kind? It sounds like the fake kind has to do with greed and the real kind has to do with love. Is that because greed has to do with physical objects that are obscured by our senses? But then how do we know the real love of seeing a baby? Aren't mothers who steal other people's baby's greedy? But you also seemm to be saying that there are "preset physical responses": but if we are programmed to react the wrong way because our perceptions are inaccurate that we can't know some things? If that's so then I would think that they would be unnecssary and would not have been included in the intelligence programmed into the universe. Am I missing something? I think I missed something here: is the "natural path" love? I'm not sure I understand what love has to do with intelligence. I'm not sure I understand. How is the mouse's intelligence limited if it comes from the same source? I thought that because all interpretations are misleading that there's no reason the mouse should be just as smart as me. I mean he receives the protons at the same speed I do, maybe its just that because our perceptions are false that the mouse actually is smart and maybe could play chess, but we aren't able to perceive it because our preconceptions that we're the only intelligent species are getting in the way? Now I'm really confused. So the universe is an entity of some kind? But it came from something outside that gave it its original intelligence? And I'm not sure I asked the question right, but why can't I get at information like how to play chess as well as my youngest daughter who always beats me? Am I like the mouse? Somehow my ability to get at the intelligence is limited? Why should that happen? So if i got the right input I could learn everything? So with the right inputs a specific mouse could be smarter than all people? But aren't all those inputs misleading? Shouldn't it make many of the conclusions I make false, just like the scientific experiments that fail to prove their theories? And are the results random because the matter that affects us has random properties? I'm not sure I'm following you, but I'm trying. Also, I am really anxious to understand what you mean by "programmed in" but I haven't seen what you mean by that anywhere. Could you explain that? Lazlo

My daughters tell me I am smarter than I think, but I'm not sure I missed something in what you say here. I guess what I'm confused about is what you mean by "intelligence"...what is it? I think I understand what you mean when you say its everywhere and something that scientists don't know about gets it there, but does that mean a mouse has the same intelligence I do? I do a bit of programming, what do you mean by "programmed in?" How does that happen? And you say that the intelligence in the universe is limited: does that mean we already know everything? How come we don't know things? I'm not very good at chess, is there a way I can get at this intelligence that others seem to be aware of and I am not? Thanks for your patience: I don't know a lot about these kinds of things. Lazlo

I don't really know! It seemed that way to me, but maybe that's why my dauthters tell me I'm a clueless chauvinist pig! I'm told its part of being in my generation! I'm not very good with these things... Do you know Mr. Fishteacher then? Lazlo

This is all very facinating! Is there a "thinnest" Phat number? I know you are looking for large numbers of divisors, but I would be quite curious to know what the distribution curve would look like? Is it monotonically decreasing? I will have to pull out my C++ compiler and work on this! Lazlo

Oh, my! This one I know! You live on Prarie St in Arlington, TX, is that correct? I've read a little bit by Ms. FishTeacher, and she seems like a very nice lady who you should like. I'm sure she likes your cohesion quite nicely! Lazlo

This is all a bit confusing. Could you explain to me what this intelligence is? Lazlo

A friend of mine told me about this place. I don't pretend to be all that smart, but I like math and politics and I like to write! I like to ask questions, so don't expect me to have lots of answers. Yours truely, Lazlo Toth