What can we know of reality?

[watcher]

The point to all that is to support that assumptions are not made to what ontological reality ought to be. However, for what its worth at this stage, Annsih hypothesises that just like a lot of evolutionary traits, what remains is what survived, and what survives relative to environment is typically the most cost effective, or efficient epistemological process. What remains, and what is, in us is the 3dimensional epistemological map. Hence the elaboration on 3D's efficiency in comparison to other dimensional considerations.

 

most confusion about the discussion like this is the mixed up that happens between "WHAT IS" and "WHAT IS OUGHT TO BE".

 

the former speaks of ontology while the latter is of meaning. so if our goal is to drop all assumptions so as our model reflect the most accurate representation of what is ( or even HOW IS), in my opinion, it does not follow that the most efficient epi process is what practical to us.

 

quantum mechanics whose solution is done in configured (5d) space have many practical applications to date. entanglement, a non local non classical phenomenon is accepted today as an available resource that can be utilized for quantum computing. i can't see any superiority of 3d worldview just because it is our most common perception of day to day reality.

 

it may also be interesting if the relationship between what is and what ought to be is determined. for example in an emergent system, the information of the source is totally unknowable because it is totally transformed to what already emerged.

 

It is a fine line discussion.. I agree... and maybe watcher you really do have a valid point, that quote: "it is impossible to create a model without any assumption to be made", but I can't confidently make a choice if it is valid or not based on that statement alone. So, if for any reason my response does not clear anything up. I'd be interested in what further you have to elaborate on that quoted statement.

 

that is why we have to ask first what it it that tell us what is valid or not. where do we rely to say that something is true or false. an illusion or real.

 

something is valid if it is self evident. something is self evident until proven to be false. in all of this process, we as an empirical observer is the judge. the direction of science is always one of an all encompassing perspective. we say that the world as flat and still and considered to be self evident until some one can see and proved that the world seen in outer space is otherwise.

 

part of this observing is the perfect coincidence of the logical relationship and pattern we see in nature and how it fits perfectly with our logical, mathematical and analytical mind. so as an observing mind, our favorite method of inquiry is to express everything in an equation.

 

so the first assumption will always be what we see or know is always the valid assumption as a start point of our modeling. although by experience what we see is always proven to be subsets of the what is.

[watcher]

arkain for our benefit to understand, DD made a private message to me as a reply to the now closed what is space time thread. i think the fact that ansshi keeps referring to DD's analysis in this thread is his appreciation to DD's work.

 

as far as i can understand his reply, DD's believe that a "rest frame of the universe" is the best way to model a theory. he also mentioned that the relativistic transformation can be incorporated in this rest frame so as to get rid of the somehow different observers point of view in einstein relativity. iow i think that dd was seeking a more absolute (all encompassing) point of view.

 

i find this interesting and post FYI. if this is how i understand him, this might help to compensate further understanding to the OP and to his intentions. in other words the answer to the original question within the context of DD's work.

[AnssiH]

I am concerned with your assertion that a 3D mental representation (we'll say a 3D map) is useful *regardless* of the ontological nature of the territory. I give specific examples of ontological entities (a box, a tesseract, space, water... etc) in order to introduce a counterexample to your assertion—not to assert their validity. It's disheartening in so far as our ability to communicate that you didn't get that.

 

No worries and no need to be disheartened, I did get what you were saying. I just didn't respond to that point separately because, first, I wasn't entirely sure if you were saying that seriously, and second, I thought that even if you were serious, my post would explain that part to you too.

 

But, now I know you were serious, and that I need to be little bit more explicit about that particular issue, so here goes...

 

First, the reason why I wasn't sure if you were serious was that, from my perspective it was exactly analogous to the argument "some intelligent design must have placed ice on the north pole, as otherwise the polar bears would drown". What is missed is, that the existence of the polar bears, is due to the existence of ice. (so to speak)

 

Likewise, the existence of your expectations of a certain situation that you are facing, is due to the fact that you have first defined some persistent entities to exist in the situation (your definitions tell you how you expect them to work).

 

So, suppose you lived in a 4D universe, and yet in our mind you had transformed that into some sort of 3D world conception. Suppose, you were facing a situation where ontologically, there was a hyper-box being filled with hyper-water (or whatever).

 

Notice that from your perspective, when understood in terms of self-coherent set of 3D objects that you had defined, that situation would never be conceived as "a hyper-box being filled"; your conception is some completely different looking entities behaving in completely different (but more or less predictable) manner.

 

Therefore, whenever you have an idea about how to build a "box" to hold "water", that is an idea working entirely according to some objects that you have defined and noticed to behave in such way as to give you the expectation that the "water" will stay in the box (in fact, that behaviour is part of your definition for water). I.e your idea about "how something works", is a function of your expectations, which is a function of how you have defined objects in your conception.

 

And if you did face a situation where "water" was vanishing from a box in an unexplainable manner, I can assure you, you would try and invent an explanation for it (probably wouldn't call it water), according to the exact context that you perceive to affect the situation.

 

Now, I should re-iterate to you that DD's epistemological analysis is precisely a mathematical proof showing that given some set of unknown patterns, one can always build a self-coherent explanation for those patterns, where the defined entities obey newtonian mechanics. It leaves the issue of dimensionality open; given any number of dimensions, the resulting objects will obey newtonian mechanics. It's just that, what sorts of entities you end up defining exactly, will also depends on how many spatial dimensions you choose to use to describe "objects".

 

Or to give you even more precise assessment, any self-coherent explanation that does not make superfluous assumptions, is unavoidably going to work with entities that obey newtonian mechanics.

 

If anyone wants me to move this conversation to another thread or a new thread then that would be no trouble—let me know.

 

No need for that, this is very relevant to the epistemological analysis, and since you had that misconception, I think many other people probably have it as well.

 

All I can say is, try not to investigate this through your pre-existing paradigm, which is exactly what you are doing when you are supposing that a hyperbox would be a complete object in the ontological world and when seen through 3D-goggles would still be a box, just one where things disappear. No, that single box would probably be seen as bits and pieces of some other objects, as it was you who had to define those objects from unknown patterns. There is no box, until you say "this pattern means there is a box".

 

If you understand what I'm trying to say, then the only obstacle is in proving that indeed, given unknown data, a newtonian world can be seen when its patterns are defined to be objects. And to understand that proof, I'm afraid you need to follow the math.

 

I hope this reply was slightly less disheartening (I think if you now look at my previous reply again, you can see that the details explained in this post are a direct consequence of what I was saying there)

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

you are claiming not to make any assumption but go on with your reply that you somehow recommend or prefer 3d space than hyperspace.

 

isn't that already an assumption? that 3d space is superior to 4,5 d space in representing reality?

 

You should scroll up and look at the context where I said it. Modest is questioning why do we conceive reality in terms of 3D world if all the other options would be equally valid. I was commenting on cost-assesment reasons why that WAY OF THINKING would have been chosen in evolution/individual learning.

 

i think it is impossible to create a model without any assumption to be made, but it does simplify if our a prioris are minimized.

 

Almost everybody thinks that way, but DD's work, if valid, is the exact proof that that idea is false; that our current world conception is exactly aligned with the kind of world conception that arises when few unavoidable symmetries are obeyed.

 

There are assumptions involved still, but they amount to merely semantically different expressions of few essential relationships, that are exactly the relationships yielding the newtonian picture, relativity, quantum mechanics, energy preservation, momentum preservation, the relativistic relationship between energy and mass etc... Those all arise from the symmetry arguments, not from the expicit meaning of the data that is explained.

 

I think, if you are interested, you should really concentrate more on this discussion.

 

-Anssi

[ldsoftwaresteve]

AnsiH: "that our current world conception is exactly aligned with the kind of world conception that arises when few unavoidable symmetries are obeyed.

There are assumptions involved still, but they amount to merely semantically different expressions of few essential relationships, that are exactly the relationships yielding the newtonian picture, relativity, quantum mechanics, energy preservation, momentum preservation, the relativistic relationship between energy and mass etc... Those all arise from the symmetry arguments, not from the expicit meaning of the data that is explained."

 

i.e. the math is where it's at.

 

The coldness of the water is directly related to my ignorance of mathematics. Nobody likes to see how blind they are.

My understanding of mathematics allowed me to get through my studies with a nice grade point but I feel now that I missed the meaning behind most of it. Unfortunate. It wouldn't have been that hard to see below the surface to the structure that I feel this thread touches.

What I find amazing here is that I am not alone in the fear of sticking my toe in the water. That implies that others are as weak in mathematics as I am (and as gutless). Not you AnsiH.

If DD's theory holds water (what a usefull concept), the mathematics should prove it or not. So why is there such a reluctance to open that door?

Because it's much harder to cry "foul" when we toss out words, since we can just stand behind our own definitions and obfuscate the conversation as if no clear winner means we didn't lose.

I'm going to bow out again but I wish DD and AnsiH (and other truth seekers) all the best.

If I can bring some calm into my own world to where I can spend the required time, I'll take another look at the math. But I'm afraid it would consume me until comprehension. Right now I'd have to give up too much and I can't do that.

Thank you guys for this mental vacation.

[AnssiH]

He describes that, as for a "correct" view of the ontological, he carefully makes the point it would be false against our purpose to do so. (even though our processing brains have already performed that task, and are performing that task (assuming 3D is correct) and so it lives 3d)

 

But as for the cognitive processes that a brain evolved. Anssih describes; of all the variable assumptions a brain can make by forming a map of ontological reality, a quick analysis suggests the possibility that the 3dimensional map would be most efficient.

 

...

 

I am not attempting to answer for Anssih. I read what Anssih wrote, and this is basically how I understood him

 

Yes I think you understood what I was trying to say. And I think your explanation to Watcher is spot on. Furthermore;

 

the former speaks of ontology while the latter is of meaning. so if our goal is to drop all assumptions so as our model reflect the most accurate representation of what is ( or even HOW IS), in my opinion, it does not follow that the most efficient epi process is what practical to us.

 

Let me re-iterate what Arkain just said, that this discussion had diverted to two issues, one was referring to the validity of an analytical understanding of reality, and the other to the practical reasons for the brain to still use a simpler approximation in the everyday survival.

 

And Arkain, like I said to Steve, I really appreciate your attempts to understand, and I think you are getting it. I'm sure you needed to think through some issues that at first glance seemed to break the whole idea down.

 

That's just how it always is when you try to wrestle a new paradigm into your worldview. This paradigm shift from "naive realism" (or "scientific realism"?) to "deep constructivism" (if I can call it that) is quite analogous to the paradigm shift from "intelligent design" to "self-organization", as the difficulties from moving one paradigm to the other are quite parallel.

 

Remember the arguments; "But you can't explain how something like eye could exist if all its parts hadn't been especially designed to do exactly what they do"

 

Whereas if you understand self-organization as an entire paradigm, it is exactly an explanation about how something like eye comes to exist without design.

 

Here it's; "But you can't explain why the objects in reality indeed behave in newtonian way and are 3 dimensional, if ontological reality wasn't really like that" or "why on earth would it be useful for an organism to see reality in newtonian 3D perspective if it was actually 5 dimensional and completely different"

 

Whereas if you understand this epistemological analysis as an entire paradigm, it is exactly an explanation about how something like a newtonian conception comes to exist, AND BE PREDICTION-WISE VALID, without any ties to the actual form of the ontological reality.

 

The organisms are a result of their environment, therefore they "fit" their environment without being especially designed that way. And, the parts of the eye are a function of their environment, therefore they "fit", etc.

 

Likewise here; The definitions of persistent entities, are a result of general self-coherency and symmetry requirements, therefore they "fit" with those requirements.

 

The symmetry & self-coherence requirements apply to ANY procedure that transforms "unknown patterns" into a "self-coherent set of 'persistent entities'" without making superfluous assumptions, that is why they are "general".

 

And while the requirements do NOT amount to any specific individual definitions, they do amount to very specific relationships between defined entities. Those required relationships are exactly tautologous to the relationships expressed by Newton. (To be perfectly accurate, Newton's expression of the relationships is an approximation of the required relationships, as is Schrödinger's expression)

 

Therefore, while you never know what the ontological reality is underneath your "defined entities", you do know that whatever entities you managed to define, they will closely obey Schrödinger's equation. They "fit" Schrödinger's equation not because reality was "given" in that form somehow. They "fit" Schrödinger's equation because Schrödinger's Equation is a succint expression of those generally required relationships.

 

Therefore, if you live in a world that is vastly different than your conception of it, even then, you would simply come to perform your definitions onto the "unkown patterns" in such way that you'd understand that reality in form of objects approximately obeying newtonian relationships & schrödinger's equation.

 

For many of you, there are probably all sorts of little details in your worldview that keep popping up and seem to pose a problem here. "But that is just not possible because of X".

 

Notice how you see all sorts of elaborate arguments from the proponents of ID, that are rationalized entirely according to their believes about what world is like, i.e. their arguments rest on the assumption that their beliefs are absolutely valid, even when there is no objective reason to that belief. They are not able to see their hidden assumptions, as their thoughts operate so deeply with the concepts of their worldview (well "doh!"), and they just find every fiber in their body fighting furiously against the idea of self-organization. They are completely unable to see any rationality behind it.

 

Likewise, here we've seen all sorts of elaborate arguments from the proponents of "scientific realism", rationalized according to the beliefs that they hold in their worldview about certain facets of the "ontological form of reality". Notice how all the arguments here are very clearly resting on ideas that simply CANNOT be found in any explicit & objective manner from any unknown patterns of raw data. Notice how all the arguments are resting on defined entities / concepts, that must be part and parcel of a world conception before they can even be "thought about" (incl. dimensionality). Yet, the persons are essentially arguing with the firm belief that certain assumptions they have made about the ontological form of reality, MUST be absolutely valid, "other options just don't make sense".

 

I think it is safe to say that many people here have not grasped that paradigm shift, and they are holding on to many undefendable assumptions about ontological reality, because they simply cannot see any way to let go of them; they cannot see the rationality of taking "identity" or "dimensionality" as something that cannot be a priori assumed to be ontologically valid.

 

Like is the case with ID proponents, as long as they are not able to identify their hidden undefendable assumptions - so to grasp this paradigm - they will find every single fiber of their body fighting against this idea. The rationality is completely hidden from their view, as they are thinking about this from deep inside their particular worldview, and only see incoherence and insurmountable problems.

 

I know many people here, who are reading this and even feeling the tingling of those fibers, are still thinking "Well perhaps Anssi has got a point, but most probably he just didn't really understand my counter argument". Well, I grant you that assumption, but let me just say that the logical steps from the symmetry arguments to Schrödinger's Equation have been laid before your eyes already, and it should serve you well to trace those steps yourself, and maybe think about the implications yourself.

 

You know, just give it a thought.

 

-Anssi

[watcher]

There are assumptions involved still, but they amount to merely semantically different expressions of few essential relationships

 

the moment you put an assumption to a symbol. it becomes semantical.

 

that are exactly the relationships yielding the newtonian picture, relativity, quantum mechanics, energy preservation, momentum preservation, the relativistic relationship between energy and mass etc... Those all arise from the symmetry arguments, not from the expicit meaning of the data that is explained.

 

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Doctordick]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

That is why I am pointing out that almost all of modern physics can be deduced from my fundamental equation. :) ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

That is why I am pointing out that almost all of modern physics can be deduced from my fundamental equation. :) ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

and up to now i am not sure what is the distilled essence of your fundamental equation. no math please.

[modest]

So, suppose you lived in a 4D universe, and yet in our mind you had transformed that into some sort of 3D world conception. Suppose, you were facing a situation where ontologically, there was a hyper-box being filled with hyper-water (or whatever).

 

Notice that from your perspective, when understood in terms of self-coherent set of 3D objects that you had defined, that situation would never be conceived as "a hyper-box being filled"; your conception is some completely different looking entities behaving in completely different (but more or less predictable) manner.

 

Yeah, I get that you're assuming the above is true. Explaining the assumption doesn't demonstrate that it's valid—nor does repeating it.

 

A tesseract (or any 4D object) is a valid ontological element which I can describe using math and logic. 3D euclidean space is a valid worldview which I can also describe using math and logic. Your assertion, stated here,

DD's work is essentially an explanation as to why, the mental 3D representation is very useful way to represent the data, and why it is valid regardless of the ontological nature of the expressed data.

is that 3D Euclidean space is a "very useful way to represent" the 4D object. This assertion of yours can be tested, again... using math and logic.

 

The life form (or perhaps computer program ) with the three-space worldview creates elements (let's say a piece of glass) in the shape of a square. The elements are equivalent in macroscopic form in that no matter how they are arranged in the 3-space any one can take the place of the other through rotation and translation.

 

Usefulness is rather subjective, but my scenario is a simple and straightforward approach. How many of these square faces are required to bind an element spatially? We might say our life form wants to keep an object near it—to set a boundary about the object, and it has only these square faces to accomplish the task.

 

With the life form's 3D worldview he will naturally conclude that 6 are required. His worldview is useful in so far as it is correct. But, the ontological nature of reality need not agree with that worldview. It is entirely possible that a tesseract is required to accomplish the task thus requiring 24 of these square faces to bind the object. Thus there exists a possible and a valid ontological element for which this 3D world view is *not* useful.

 

That is my analysis and nothing you've said shows it wrong. Where you assume that the 3D worldview will somehow (you don't explain how) accomplish the task of giving the life form a useful answer—I do not. I assume that it may or may not give him good answers depending on the nature of the underlying ontology.

 

By the way, I could use your argument to assert that it is always useful to have a worldview where every object in the universe is a banana. I am unable to prove or describe how the banana-worldview is useful for specific non-banana elements, but neither have you proved or described how the 3D-worldview is useful for non-3D elements. Saying "but the universe isn't really made of bananas" is rejected. I simply assume that whatever the real nature of the universe is, it somehow *usefully* translates into my banana worldview.

 

It seems to me a strange assessment.

 

~modest

[Doctordick]

By the way, I could use your argument to assert that it is always useful to have a worldview where every object in the universe is a banana.

Think about what you are saying. You are asserting that your explanation of reality is that every object in the universe is a banana. Well, I am simply at a loss as to what you mean by that: i.e., I do not understand your explanation. I do not understand how that explanation can be used to determine the acceptability of any specific response to any specific circumstance. It doesn't even begin to satisfy the definition of an explanation.

I am unable to prove or describe how the banana-worldview is useful for specific non-banana elements

Though I do not understand your explanation of the universe (every object in the universe is a banana) this second comment is still rather silly. If every object in the universe is a banana, what purpose is there to concern yourself with “non-banana elements”?

I simply assume that whatever the real nature of the universe is, ...

Why are you making assumptions? Anssi and I are trying very hard not to make any assumptions of any kind. I don't think you understand what we are doing.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

This seems to be straying off topic.

 

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

 

I am interested in your full view.

 

This will act as a way for me to counter-argue my own analysis, and respond accordingly, not to mention other active posters like DD, Anssih, and others.

[Doctordick]

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

If modest can do so then he misunderstands the issue being discussed. The only thing one can know is exactly what is it that he desires to achieve. Call that achievement an explanation or understanding, it really makes no difference, but what does make a difference is exactly what is meant by the concept explanation or understanding.

 

What it is that you are explaining is not the issue! That is exactly the solution to the problem: i.e., the solution concerns the nature of the required epistemological construct, not the ontological basis. The actual ontological basis is an unknowable thing. Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

That is my analysis and nothing you've said shows it wrong. Where you assume that the 3D worldview will somehow (you don't explain how) accomplish the task of giving the life form a useful answer—I do not. I assume that it may or may not give him good answers depending on the nature of the underlying ontology.

 

I guess I should re-iterate, as strongly as I can, that in the beginning of the analysis there exists no assumption about the 3D-worldview always being useful. That assertion of 3D-worldivew being useful, is based on the results of the analysis. I.e. the explanation you are asking for, is the analysis itself.

 

I'm sorry you feel that repetition gets us nowhere but I don't know what else to do here. The general self-coherence & symmetry requirements can be expressed mathematically (their impact on any valid prediction function), and the fundamental equation is an algebraically modified succint expression of all those requirements.

 

After few approximations (disregarding feedback from the rest of the universe etc, the exact approximations that always exist in conventional physics) and algebraic manipulation, we end up with Schrödinger's Equation. I.e., the relationship normally known as Schrödinger's Equation, was already embedded in the original general requirements.

 

I hope your belief, that a 4D world cannot be usefully expressed in a 3D form, does not block you from looking at the proof itself. And I must say, it is quite apparent to me that your argument is coming directly from the "scientific realism" paradigm (your argument rests on assumptions that cannot be objectively defended).

 

I can once again try to point out exactly where those undefendable assumptions are:

 

With the life form's 3D worldview he will naturally conclude that 6 are required. His worldview is useful in so far as it is correct. But, the ontological nature of reality need not agree with that worldview. It is entirely possible that a tesseract is required to accomplish the task thus requiring 24 of these square faces to bind the object. Thus there exists a possible and a valid ontological element for which this 3D world view is *not* useful.

 

When you are thinking about "square faces in 3D perspective" and the same "square faces in 4D perspective", you are thinking about some very specific (and fairly simple) transformation there; I suspect some sort of "projection" scheme, as having a specific setup of square objects in 3D view, and imagine how that would "project itself into 4D world" and vice versa.

 

In other words, you have already defined a very specific transformation, and furthermore assumed that it is possible to take a 4D reality and define it self-coherently into exactly such 3D form, which would generate that exact "projection transformation" between them. What's more, you have assumed that that sort of transformation is the ONLY possibility open to us. (I suspect it was completely hidden from your conscious thought, that you had actually made this assumption)

 

The possibility of that sort of "projection transformation" was never part of my assertion, but you assumed it was because you are interpreting my assertions in terms of your "scientific realism" paradigm; you automatically thought something along the lines of "if reality was actually a set of 4D objects, then the case of "perceiving too few dimensions" would lead us to see the projections of those 4D objects as the objects with persistent identity."

 

Remember when I said that a hyperbox wouldn't be seen as a "box" in a 3D conception... Your thoughts on the issue are a typical case of "naive realism", and I've been trying to point out many times that after the transformation from 4D to 3D you would probably see quite a different features of reality as "the objects having persistent identity". Yet, you are only concerned with why I have not addressed the problem of "not being able to bind an object between 6 plates"*.

 

I'm sorry that I'm not able to explain the issues clearer. There are many pitfalls here if you are not careful with your thoughts, and I think the post #346 would be my best attempt at warning you about the dangers of overlooking your hidden assumptions.

 

 

Now, if you can take a step back and shed your specific ideas of "how 4D projects into 3D", please think about where we actually are before having defined dimensionality into our worldview. We are trying to build an explanation, based on patterns, which defines those patterns into what we suppose they mean, in terms of a worldview where "persistent identity" exists.

 

You don't believe it would be in any way possible to live in a 4D world, that would be transformed into a prediction-wise valid 3D conception. Take into account, that what would be a single persistent 4D object, might translate into some part of your explanation having to do with multiple objects and very specific dynamics between them. It is probably not possible to have a "4D box" that would, after the transformation through "patterns" to "defined 3D entities", still look something like a "box".

 

Just as a sidenote, perhaps you are able to appreciate the fact that one can look at Minkowski spacetime as "a set of static 4D objects", or as a "set of 3D objects plus some dynamics between them".

 

ps, in case you are wondering, I don't think this is a diversion from the topic at all, as I think the fact that you see problems with this analysis is probably an indication that many other people see exactly the same problems (how many lurkers do we have?). I hope I am able to explain this, at least to the extent that I persuade some people to look at the epistemological analysis with an open mind and more or less from the correct perspective. I really think this is important.

 

-Anssi

 

* If this needs further commentary, then notice that you are ultimately trying to form expectations about the raw patterns. How do you suppose it would be possible to ever be surprised, that a box was not able to bind your object, if we had never in the history of the world had the experience of a box binding something?

 

I didn't want to point this issue out before, because it can lead to quite many further confusions, but perhaps after all the commentary I have already provided to this issue, one can begin to understand that in the case you describe, we would probably never even see that situation as a "box" and "object inside", as it probably wouldn't be very valid worldview if its objects were defined in such a way that they could just disappear and re-appear willy-nilly. I mean, those kinds of features of the data would probably not be seen as "persistent objects".

 

And even that last paragraph is really quite incoherent and somewhat naive way to put it, if you think about it for a while. Noticed how I just injected ontological ideas into epistemological issues quite incoherently, when I gave the impression of "objects disappearing and re-appearing"... Everyone who don't know what I mean by that, please just ignore EVERYTHING after the asterisk, as I think it would just lead you to misconceptions.

 

Hmmm, I think I see a pattern here, as in me and DD are trying to explain the issues from as coherent perspective as we manage, which only results to complaints saying that we are not really addressing your specific arguments... :naughty: Well, I can assure you all that I'm trying to address your arguments as accurately as I can!

[arkain101]

If modest can do so then he misunderstands the issue being discussed. The only thing one can know is exactly what is it that he desires to achieve. Call that achievement an explanation or understanding, it really makes no difference, but what does make a difference is exactly what is meant by the concept explanation or understanding.

 

What it is that you are explaining is not the issue! That is exactly the solution to the problem: i.e., the solution concerns the nature of the required epistemological construct, not the ontological basis. The actual ontological basis is an unknowable thing. Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Firstly, at this point, going by the totality of my knowledge (hmm understood information?) all I can do is agree with what you have said here above, because, for as long as I have studied and thought about this myself, I have never been able to produce any reasons that should tell me otherwise. However, I do have some nagging problems.(ill get to that later)

 

When I look at the fundamental basics, of reality, after a series of logical deduction, I always end up with two things I can hold in my hands.

 

On the one hand I have the unknown, which when I attempt to comprehend, I begin by thinking of the incredibly tiny quantum world, and then jump one step further to reach lack of description. This hand holds the source to hardcore undefined data, it is pure potential and because it is so, it seeps from my mind, like water seeps through a net scooping for particles out of a tank.

 

On the other hand I have everything I can see, measure, and feel that I comprehend on a much larger scale. I begin by trying to comprehend a very large and real object, or as much of a universe as I can. The further I mentally leave my, central point of view, the further I travel into my predicted future. This hand holds the masterpiece my mind is able to create. It is full of meaning and static entities. It is a series of patterns mingling with patterns, like harmonics mixing with harmonics to form other octaves.

 

And when I compare these two things in my hand they seem extremely different, and worthy of separation, and recognition of their validity.

 

Even so, I still ponder, how or maybe why is it that some locations, like a planet for example, contain more concentrated data that another location such as empty space?

 

I respond to myself: that relative to the hand of the very tiny, there is no static conception of space, and as such, what I think as a concentrated area and non conenctrated area is only my unique perspective of a point on a massive scale of time. I try to recognize that this concentrated area of data (like a planet) on a massive scale of time is many more things than a static object in space. If I were to observe every point of its life, it would consist of billions of locations in trillions upon trillions of different states. States such as dust, or gas, or in the future as part of a star, or even further in the future as sucked into a black hole. In essence I try to recognize the fact that my perspective is not universally special, or of any greater superiority than any other perspective of this concentrated area. Which leads to the conclusion that a concentrated area, is only a snap shot fantasy, of the more accurate fact that in the span of time, it is also a void area, or a more concentrated area, and may or may not be any of those conditions relative to any hypothetical observer.

 

 

 

I am not in a qualified position to say whether or not your actual mathematical work has any errors, flaws, or misinterpretations. But, I am comfortable with the position of the theory, and philosophical manners. My purpose is to validate my theory with responses including your mathematical insight. As well as recieve any other persons counter-arguments and explanations and doing so, they can expose to the discussion the limit of their insight. When that limit is exposed they should be left with a question. The answer to that question "they've reached" should thus take them one step further in the direction towards comprehending this theory and your work. And I quote.

Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

 

 

So "If modest can do so", it is true, he might expose how and where he misunderstands the issue being discussed. Not only this, but he may share his preferred methods of interpretation. He may show his strongest arguments. He may show the bridging points of his understanding and the destinations this theory intends to take you.

 

If Modest could expose his interpretations, as to, his deepest insight that take us right to the very limits and barriers of his explanations, in respect to him, this discussion should leap forward. This goes in respect to any participant of this discussion.

 

I am confident to say, the people whom understand this discussion inside and out, are prepared to deal with those limits and barriers in peoples explanations, and lead them into understanding what exactly is being discussed.

[modest]

By the way, I could use your argument to assert that it is always useful to have a worldview where every object in the universe is a banana.

Think about what you are saying. You are asserting that your explanation of reality is that every object in the universe is a banana. Well, I am simply at a loss as to what you mean by that: i.e., I do not understand your explanation.

I'm equally at a loss as to what Anssi means that any ontology is usefully expressed in 3D. I do not understand his explanation.

I am unable to prove or describe how the banana-worldview is useful for specific non-banana elements

Though I do not understand your explanation of the universe (every object in the universe is a banana) this second comment is still rather silly. If every object in the universe is a banana, what purpose is there to concern yourself with “non-banana elements”?

Your comment "If every object in the universe is a banana" shows a misunderstanding. I'm not asserting that every object in the universe is *really* a banana. I cannot know the real nature of 'elements' in the universe. I'm representing them as a banana regardless of their real nature.

I simply assume that whatever the real nature of the universe is, ...

Why are you making assumptions? Anssi and I are trying very hard not to make any assumptions of any kind. I don't think you understand what we are doing.

"Assuming that whatever the real nature of the universe is..." is exactly what this quote does:

DD's work is essentially an explanation as to why, the mental 3D representation is very useful way to represent the data, and why it is valid regardless of the ontological nature of the expressed data.

If there is a valid explanation for how a 3D representation is useful and valid for *any* ontology then I've yet to see it. In asking to see it I've gotten nothing but the assumption repeated.

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

In the words of Descartes, all I can say for sure about reality is that "I exist". The rest may well be a devil tricking me, or in modern parlance... the matrix.

 

After few approximations (disregarding feedback from the rest of the universe etc, the exact approximations that always exist in conventional physics) and algebraic manipulation, we end up with Schrödinger's Equation. I.e., the relationship normally known as Schrödinger's Equation, was already embedded in the original general requirements.

Schrodinger's equation is just as valid in 4D as 3D. Why the derivation of Schrodinger's equation would mean a 3D mental representation would be useful in any conceivable (and valid) universe... I can't imagine. :D

 

And I must say, it is quite apparent to me that your argument is coming directly from the "scientific realism" paradigm (your argument rests on assumptions that cannot be objectively defended).

And that's what the rest of your post deals with... which misses the point and misjudges the issue.

 

Have you seen me say: "a 3D representation is useful because the universe really is 3D"? No, but that's pretty much all you've responded to.

 

~modest

[arkain101]

Notes:

-please take the time to read through, I cut it down and trimmed it as much as I possibly could, without eliminating clarity

-If you would like to skip the introduction (although I don't recommend it since I will be using certain terms and abreviations) skip down the problem,question,solution in red text.

 

 

 

 

This question requires a preface/introduction.

 

 

In this theory (you do call it a theory right?) based upon your fundamental equation, I've come to recognize a problem. At least, a problem that I have found when making this investigation on my own terms. I have produced a possible solution but I have yet to be bothered dive into heavy math to validate that solution.

 

 

 

I should be able to summarize this, in respect to the fact I believe we both understand this quite well.

 

Basically we have two mutually exclusive realities.

(A)One that is known, because it belongs to us as our map of the territory(contained / produces by our senses and consciousness).

(B)And another that is entirely unknown, because it is the territory with no map applied(beyond our senses and separate from out consciousness)

 

 

"A" tells me there is locations in space where there is greater and lesser concentrations of "B" this unknown. These variable concentrations are represented in "A" as bodies of mass like planets and objects, gas, dust, found and observed through out the cosmos.

 

 

So. Even though "A" might acquire data that has an origin that is entirely unknown(:), it manages to do a pretty good job at determining where planets and things are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plausible Problem

 

 

 

A person considers the following (the plausible problem):

 

"Whether we think of an object, like a planet, as known(A) -where in this respect it is projected to exist in a location-, or if we think of an object as a point of origin where unknown data -in higher concentration relative to other locations- makes its way to the observer "ready to be processed and mentally projected", the conclusions are essentially the same. That is, we can't just answer this as simply as saying "the planet does not exist", it takes a inclusion of all areas of science to respond respectfully. We can't just say it does not exist because in respect to A, clearly it does exist. It refuses change due to its mass/inertia. It warps space-time around it according to relativity. Objects can crash into it. It reflects light, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Plausible Question(this is specifically the question I am looking for you to answer)

 

 

 

So the question is, how can we successfully call it (transfer it to the catagory) an unknown without essentially causing its attritbutes (that do all these things: It refuses change due to its mass/inertia. It warps space-time around it according to relativity. Objects can crash into it. It reflects light.) to disapear?

 

(I want to make sure the question is absolutely clear so I am going to type it again with the bracket section removed and add to it a bit more detail.)

 

So the question is, how can we successfully call that zone an unknown without essentially causing its attritbutes to disapear. And what this says in other words is, how do we still have a bundle of mass and energy, that correlates to that of a planet in the "B" respect? ((unknown light traveling from unknown source to here, so that it can be transformed into a mental projection)

 

 

 

 

 

Plausible Solution

 

 

 

My solution involves acknowledging a plausible mistake. That mistake is that we neglect to think under the terms and conditions of Einsteinian Relativity & Quantum Physics, and have resorted to the 'Naive-Newtonian-Cornerstone' , picture/idea/conception of reality.

 

What happens when we correct this mistake is that, the planet is no longer thought of as a planet, in respect to "A"(thinking). It is then thought of as subject to terms of special and general realtivity & quantum potentials and fluctuations.

 

The Relativity terms and conditions allow and require us to say, this planet it potentially +n time or -n time relative to a specific observer, in respect to how I observe it with my own eyes (respect to A). Thus the the planet in A is contemplated as Potential defined by an observer, and the planet in B is contemplated as potential undefined.

 

The quantum potential terms and conditions allow and require us to essentially say the same things, only it talks about obviously the details of the quantum world weirdness and defines the planet furthermore different from my newtonian perspective that is projected in my mind (that I think is out there and beyond).

 

Furthermore, in order to satisfy this solution, I must take into consideration that my specific observation of this planet in respect to "A", IS NOT UNIQUE OR SPECIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and thus is lending the planet to the powers that be and letting it succumb to the idea of potential, not static ontological reality. Thus, and FINALLY, requiring my acceptance as an observer that is NOT a Newtonian-Cornerstone to reality, and that thinking I am classifies me as a 'Naive-Newtonian-Cornerstone'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is my presentation of the plausible problem, and its plausible solution.

 

 

Doctor Dick. I would very much appreciate your upmost level of response to this. What is your solution, and is my solution invalid or valid in your opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

This has got to be the biggest question I have ever formed (in terms of text. Its practically an essay)