What can we know of reality?

[modest]

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 planet in the "B" respect?

 

You don't still have a planet in the B-respect. A "planet" is a human idea that resides entirely on our map of reality. The map is good if it is useful—if you can successfully land a rover on Mars for example. But, our idea of a planet is an explanation of our senses and should not be considered the nature of reality itself.

 

So, you don't still have a "planet" in B. You have something unknown in B which is usefully represented as a planet on your map. The question is: given something which is completely unknown, how do you build a useful map?

 

I suggest trial and error :)

 

~modest

[arkain101]

You don't still have a planet in the B-respect. A "planet" is a human idea that resides entirely on our map of reality. The map is good if it is useful—if you can successfully land a rover on Mars for example. But, our idea of a planet is an explanation of our senses and should not be considered the nature of reality itself.

 

So, you don't still have a "planet" in B. You have something unknown in B which is usefully represented as a planet on your map. The question is: given something which is completely unknown, how do you build a useful map?

 

I suggest trial and error :)

 

~modest

 

Thanks for pointing out that specific misuse of words. You interpreted it exactly how I was trying to avoid. *shucks*. I edited the question, to this:

 

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)

[AnssiH]

"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.

 

Did you read what you quoted? The part where I say that DD's work (i.e. the epistemological analysis under discussion) is the explanation for exactly that issue.

 

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. :)

 

That's sort of the point; that Schrödinger's Equation is valid regardless of dimensionality. The fact that the general symmetry requirements have Schrödinger's Equation embedded to them, regardless of the dimensionality of the issue, means any data can be classified and ordered exactly like we classify and order reality in our view, in any number of dimensions.

 

Then I went on to talk about cost-benefit assesment, indicating that "more dimensions" is not always "more optimal" for a survival machine; that when adding more dimensions to a model, there is a point where more dimensions only starts to complicate the representation of a given dynamic situation.

 

The counter examples you came up with are operating with definitions that are simply not compatible, because of the way they have been defined, but not because we'd be forced to do those definitions. I wanted to point out exactly why that is, because I don't want you to think that "it simply cannot be possible to reach such conclusion", and use that as an excuse to not even look at the proof.

 

If you feel that you don't have time to invest to examine the proof, that's fine, but I don't think it is fair to claim "it is impossible" without looking at it.

 

-Anssi

[modest]

Thanks for pointing out that specific misuse of words. You interpreted it exactly how I was trying to avoid. *shucks*. I edited the question, to this:

 

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)

 

Well, now I'm not sure what you're getting at. Energy and mass, like the planet, are map entities. The idea is that we do not have absolute knowledge of reality nor any access to the fundamental nature of reality. What we have are a set of beliefs and concepts built up over time from our perception of reality. And, perception itself always mediates between reality and 'us' so that any human concept such as energy or mass must be considered part of a map of reality and never part of the territory itself. Asking how we know there's a bundle of mass and energy out there making up the planet: we don't. It's not because the planet is far away and we have only observations with a telescope to understand the planet, but rather because the way we define reality is not reality itself.

 

Map?territory relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[AnssiH]

Notes:

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.

 

...

 

"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.

 

...

 

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)

 

I think what you are trying to ask is, how can we expect to handle or investigate any aspect of the "unknown form" (can we just say noumena as per Kant?) when it is, indeed, fundamentally unknown. I.e., what are we able to say about it after removing all human definitions.

 

I'm guessing you recognized that, while you were forced to use words like "force" and "mass" and "energy", it wasn't really fair to refer to those concepts. Same goes for "zone", and your earlier description of "higher concentration" of "something".

 

If I'm reading you right, then yes, that is exactly the problem that the epistemological analysis is set to overcome. It is not set to handle the unknown itself (i.e. it is not about ontology), it is set to handle the impact, of the fact that noumena is unknown, to our worldviews (i.e. it is about epistemology)

 

Like Modest is implying, at this stage you are going to only bring in extra baggage if you try to "imagine" the noumena in any given form at all. You should not do that.

 

What we are concerned with is, what are the consequences of classifying patterns - any sorts of patterns - into a model that refers to those patterns in terms of some set of persistent entities. I.e. a model that supposes "such and such pattern means there is an electron there". or "such and such pattern means there is a cat sitting in a tree"

 

Don't try to imagine what the patterns "look like" or "are like", as you'd be immediately facing exactly the problem you are starting to recognize. Instead, concentrate on the fact that we can know something about the world models that are based on "patterns". We know, that the world models exhibit certain characteristics (the few specific symmetries to the labels of defined entities, regardless of what those defined entities may be, and how they may have been defined). All this while we still don't know anything about the reality behind the patterns!

 

I think, now that you are starting to see this problem, you should go back to when I started to respond to Rade, trying to explain exactly this issue (the issue referred to as "handling undefined ontological elements"). I think you should be able to understand exactly what I'm trying to communicate there.

 

 

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.

 

You are not going to find a better view from relativity or quantum physics in this context really. Well, better, in the sense that it is more accurate predictionwise, i.e. it is "more valid" than the newtonian view, but it will not help you with the problem with ontology that you have uncovered.

 

Also, I'd be interested to know what made you think we have resorted to a newtonian view in terms of this problem? I understand many things I've said in my posts about dimensionality may have easily given you that impression, but I have to repeat that the talk about newtonian picture being valid is not something we have started with, it is the result of the analysis. And when I say "valid", I mean approximately valid way to represent the data, not absolutely valid, and definitely not ontologically valid. This analysis will never tell you what the the actual ontological reality is like, it only investigates the possibilities regarding valid worldviews. And they are always a mere representation of the terrain, as you can never find out any information about any real identity of anything.

 

However, if you do let go of the idea of ontological identity of objects, and think about the results of the analysis in terms of "how we come to classify unknown patterns into objects in our mind", it does imply something quite interesting about quantum strangeness, does it not? (read my comments about Bell experiments)

 

Finally, like Modest asked; "The question is: given something which is completely unknown, how do you build a useful map?". That is indeed the question, it is the question I had no answer for before understanding DD's work. My thoughts were just that evolution apparently has found a way to represent reality in a meaningful way (build a predictive model), and that each specific worldview could be seen as a self-coherent set of assumptions (hence the labeling "semantical worldview").

 

That would be essentially a "trial and error" solution (start making assumptions in self-coherent fashion, until they yield a meaningful and prediction-wise valid interpretation for the data).

 

But, the epistemological analysis is an explanation for how certain relationships are uncovered from the fact that the meaning of the patterns is unknown, and how those relationships amount to exactly the relationships that are commonly seen as "the relationships governing reality". Those relationships give you the means to assign identity to patterns in such way that reality is represented in self-coherent and simple fashion (simple as in, far simpler than seeing each recurring occurrence of any pattern as an entirely new object). And, the resulting definitions are objects that are seen to approximately obey newtonian mechanics, and more accurately, relativity and quantum mechanics, etc... I'm sure you get the idea if you carefully read my earlier posts.

 

-Anssi

[arkain101]

Thank you for the attention to the presentation of the problem.

 

First, Modest.

 

I did not change the question in order to acquire a different answer, I changed it because it was not stated as the way I expected a person would be thinking it, when recognizing the problem.

 

Now,

It appears that maybe you (the readers) interpreted that I was asking a question in the way that "I can't understand how to answer it", which I was not. I was recognizing a problem that seemed to me to be a common road block that people would run into.

 

See that I was not speaking for myself.

A person considers the following (the plausible problem):

 

Then, naturally the person might pose this question based on the obstacle they've considered is a plausible problem and requires furhter undestanding:

How can we successfully classify what we see as an object as an unknown without essentially causing all of its attritbutes to disapear?

 

Finally, I share 'my' solution to that obstacle one might consider a possible / plausible problem.

My solution involves acknowledging a plausible mistake in respect to "A" thinking. That mistake is that we neglect to think under the terms and conditions of Einsteinian Relativity & Quantum Physics, and have remained using the naturally evolved 'Naive-Newtonian-Cornerstone' picture/idea/conception of what epistemological reality really is (A).

 

example:

 

remaining with persistent reality

 

 

 

So in order for a person to progress passed this obstacle that they have considered that might be a problem (hence plausible problem), I believe it would serve to be useful, for them to ignore the natural visual comprehension (this is what I meant by newtonian view ie "persistent unchanging real objects"), and move into relativity and quantum acceptance in respect to "A". Doing this, I expect will essentially provide a more acceptable method for a mind to let go of ontological identity of objects. I find it is easier to transition to that idea, when you move into the acceptance of nature having detectable "strangeness", discovered in our epistemological experimenets. You both seem very educated, in relation to these kinds of physics, and might have not consider the fact that some readers, or students of this analysis?(i keep lacking the right word for here) are yet barely able to consider the transition from the epistemological newtonian reality to even the Einsteinian or Quantum.. As such, it would be expect that a student would suffer great difficulty to jump even further to the point where essentially you are telling them, everything you see, touch, and feel is in your head, you dont have projectors on your forhead projecting a hologram, its projecting in your head. :

 

quoting your submission of the same idea.

do let go of the idea of ontological identity of objects, and think about the results of the analysis in terms of "how we come to classify unknown patterns into objects in our mind

That is, letting go of what you are certain ontological reality is.

 

 

Anssih and Modest, you provided your explanations thankfully, but I don't suppose you meant to in terms of sharing an answer directed towards an audience (as I was trying to embody something of a journalist), as much as you directed it to me personally and where to go to find answers. via links. I was hoping for an response addressing this issue alone.

 

So, I will accept this as, fair enough, you have both linked/direct to places that help explain how to deal with "handling undefined ontological elements". However, I am unsatisfied in the sense that I have not received direct responses in the way that I can not really collect a remarkable set of clear and concise individual posts which I could print out or save in a folder, or what have you to keep on record to be used for future purposes.

 

In other words I wanted collect responses from other people, in their words.

[Doctordick]

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... ;) Well, I can assure you all that I'm trying to address your arguments as accurately as I can!

Thank you Anssi for your valiant attempts.

 

Well modest, I was very disappointed to read your response. I can only take it as an attempt to obfuscate matters in order to dismiss my work as “crackpottery”. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and answer this post. If I get the same kind of response again, I will presume you have no interest in understanding what Anssi and I are talking about.

Your comment "If every object in the universe is a banana" shows a misunderstanding.

A misunderstanding of what? Unless you have edited your original post, you said, “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 cannot know the real nature of 'elements' in the universe. I'm representing them as a banana regardless of their real nature.

Then why did you use the term “banana” if not to simply obfuscate matters? Use of a common word which in fact, by convention, does indeed presume one knows the “real nature of the elements of the universe” (assumes the reader knows what a banana is), a direct contradiction of your current post. Why didn't you have the decency to use a less weighted term; like “element”. At least you might then avoid implying that you intended to bring with the word all the common baggage of definition.

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.

That is right, you have clearly made no attempt to understand that issue; instead, you want that issue explained in your paradigm where you presume dimensionality is a real characteristic of reality. It appears to me that you simply wish very much to simply remain blind to the fact that there might be another way to look at the issue.

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

No it does not. What Anssi is trying to express is the fact that my attack begins with exactly the issue that one “cannot know the real nature of 'elements' in the universe”. That is not an assumption, it is an open minded attack on the problem of creating an explanation of something you “do not know the real nature of”. Apparently the very question you do not wish to face. I think Idsoftwaresteve put your position in a metaphor of excellent clarity.

All of the recent disagreements seem to me to be like the guy who is standing next to the pool looking for a reason not to jump in. And in this case, it's the math that needs to be looked at.

 

The water IS cold AND wet and my willy WILL shrivel. Look at the pretty puppy!

 

1... 2.... uh, where is my sunblock?

You just want to distract the discussion from the subject; no? Is that what this is all about?

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.

I am trying to make the issue clear in my thread, What I believe an explanation is! I notice that you have posted there. If the only reason you are there is to find some excuse not to look at the math then you are wasting both your time and mine. I hope that is not your intention. I also note that you have made no further post after I answered your last complaints. Or maybe you just need some sunblock?

Schrodinger's equation is just as valid in 4D as 3D.

If you followed my work, you would discover that a one dimensional view of the universe is sufficient to “understand” any conceivable universe; but before you can get there, you have to have a clear definition of “understanding”. So long as all you do is make attempts to muddy that issue, you can not expect to achieve understanding of what Anssi and I are talking about.

 

What the one dimensional picture lacks is some simple mathematical relationships which only begin to appear in a two dimensional view (where they are still quite limited). In a three dimensional view the available simple mathematical relationships (Newton's laws) become quite a bit more powerful. In fact, I would suggest that if your understanding is to be limited to the behavior of anthropomorphic objects (collections of elements sufficiently stable and sufficiently large to be regarded as anthropomorphic entities unto themselves) a three dimensional view is, in fact, “the simplest view generating easy predictions of behavior of most all objects both static and dynamic” which might impact the issue of your survival. Our brains stop there because there is little common necessity to go any further.

 

It certainly does not require “the universe” has explicit dimensionality. Your tesseract is just another banana. It is something defined in your world view from a logical perspective not an intuitive perspective. You have found no “realistic” application of the idea to real world objects for the very simple reason that your “real world” perception of the universe ceases at three dimensions. I have just given you a very good reason for that fact. Your world view is, in fact, created through a mechanism I call “squirrel thought” and cannot be checked by logic. If you want to understand that comment, you need to read my post Defining the nature of rational discussion.

 

The following quote is particularly appropriate

Squirrel thought has its own strengths and weaknesses. Its strength lies in the astonishing number of factors which may be taken into account. Its weakness is the fact that the process can not be validated: i.e., there is no way to prove a squirrel decision is correct. Nevertheless, most of them will be good decisions. Why is that? The answer should be clear. Whatever the mechanisms are, by which those decisions are reached, they have been honed and polished through millions of years of survival; failure to make good "squirrel" decisions has been cleaned from the gene pool by the consequences of the bad decisions.

I still hope we are not at an impasse.

-please take the time to read through

I have read it but I won't comment about much because I find it, for the most part, totally off subject.

In this theory (you do call it a theory right?)

No, it is not a theory by any sense of the word. I carefully define what I mean by "an explanation" and "understanding an explanation" and then explicitly work out the detailed consequences of those definitions. It is essentially a proof, not a theory.

Basically we have two mutually exclusive realities.

No we don't. As far as I am concerned, I have put forth no commitment to any reality of any sort.

... is my solution invalid or valid in your opinion?

What you are expressing is "a belief" and "validity" is not an adjective applicable to a belief. (It is not a quality which can be assigned to a belief; if it can be assigned to an idea, the idea becomes a “fact” and not a “belief” .)

Did you read what you quoted?

I doubt many people read much on any forum; they just want approbation of their personal beliefs (which they usually presume are facts).

What we have are a set of beliefs and concepts built up over time from our perception of reality.

Now that is absolutely correct; it is a fact people should not forget. But you should add that time and perceptions are also beliefs as is the concept of “reality” itself.

So, I will accept this as, fair enough, you have both linked/direct to places that help explain how to deal with "handling undefined ontological elements". However, I am unsatisfied in the sense that I have not received direct responses in the way that I can not really collect a remarkable set of clear and concise individual posts which I could print out or save in a folder, or what have you to keep on record to be used for future purposes.

Forums really are not conducive to such an attack. Opening posts are often intended to be such things but the threads are, for the most part, attempts to clarify those opening posts. Actual clarification will end up turning the opening post into a clear and concise expression of the issue: i.e., “understanding” is what is required and the only way to acquire understanding is to ask your own questions.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

I can't find any form of an attack.. lol

 

I've been following as much of the discussion as I can, DD. There are 36 pages of it. I agree it may stray from the OP in some ways, but I believe it (including my post) was intended to better understand things we can know.

 

I am trying to take the neccessary steps towards learning this whole subject related to your fundamental equation (which I can only guess at this point has theory extending off from it.), I don't know what to call "all of this (your topics, and equation)", other than a theory at this point.

 

No, it is not a theory by any sense of the word. I carefully define what I mean by "an explanation" and "understanding an explanation" and then explicitly work out the detailed consequences of those definitions. It is essentially a proof, not a theory.

 

Special Relativity can still be classified as a theory, even though it essentially has a lot of proof.

 

Unless you are talking only about "what we can know topic" than I suppose I follow what you say here in your quote.

 

Maybe you can help me this way then.

 

There seems to be several topics related to these matters. The ones I am aware of are.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/11733-what-can-we-know-of-reality.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/18861-an-analytical-metaphysical-take-special-relativity.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19556-what-i-believe-an-explanation-is.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/15451-deriving-schr-dingers-equation-my-fundamental.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/19303-einsteins-space-time-not-necessary-component.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/18619-why-should-universe-appear-three-dimensional.html

 

If there are more, and/or a recommended order to view these posts. I am interested.

[modest]

Did you read what you quoted? The part where I say that DD's work (i.e. the epistemological analysis under discussion) is the explanation for exactly that issue.

 

Fair enough. :shrug:

 

That's sort of the point; that Schrödinger's Equation is valid regardless of dimensionality.

 

I think my trouble is the leap from 'a consistent (or internally consistent perhaps) explanation of unknown data' to what often seems characterized in this thread: 'a useful explanation for any given universe or any given reality'. If I accepted that DD's fundamental equation is indeed something that any consistent explanation of an unknown reality must follow then it would not immediately follow that any explanation derived from the fundamental equation would be a useful explanation for *any* realty. With the example I've been using:

 

If Newtonian mechanics in 2 dimensions is a useful and self-consistent explanation for some unknown data (or reality) then it should obey the fundamental equation. If Newtonian mechanics in 3 dimensions is a useful and self-consistent explanation for some unknown data (or reality) then it should obey the fundamental equation. It does not follow that deriving 2 dimensional Newtonian mechanics from the fundamental equation means that it will be a useful explanation for any given reality. It's a converse error.

 

Now, I may be right and I may be wrong about this. But, regardless, I find it troubling that in bringing up the question I've yet to see it resolved by anybody addressing the issue or explaining the analysis. In fact, I've been away from this thread for a couple days (been too busy) and I return to find I've developed some interesting motives in my absence:

 

I wanted to point out exactly why that is, because I don't want you to think that "it simply cannot be possible to reach such conclusion", and use that as an excuse to not even look at the proof.

 

If you feel that you don't have time to invest to examine the proof, that's fine, but I don't think it is fair to claim "it is impossible" without looking at it.

 

If the only reason you are there is to find some excuse not to look at the math then you are wasting both your time and mine.

 

How bizarre. Especially considering:

 

Anssi and I are trying very hard not to make any assumptions of any kind.

 

You might get a better response from respondents if you didn't assume they have odd motivations for asking questions about your analysis.

 

Well modest, I was very disappointed to read your response. I can only take it as an attempt to obfuscate matters in order to dismiss my work as “crackpottery”.

 

If you like. It's funny I've made an attempt over the last couple weeks to gain a better understanding of what you're doing here and I've been very careful not to judge how valid it is until understanding it better (I've actually explicitly said as much) and in return I get my motivations constantly questioned. I can't imagine what that gets you.

 

A misunderstanding of what? Unless you have edited your original post, you said, “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.”

Thank you for the opportunity to explain. I consider what I said:

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.

To be fundamentally different from how you characterized what I said:

If every object in the universe is a banana, what purpose is there to concern yourself with “non-banana elements”?

Your comment seems to miss the purpose of the analogy I made. I was certainly not asserting that every ontological element in the universe is a banana any more than Anssi was asserting that our universe is three dimensional. I was saying that the universe could be usefully represented with bananas while the underlying ontology is completely unknown just as Anssi was saying the universe could be usefully represented as 3D while the underlying ontology is unknown.

 

Clearly the difference (as Anssi has now pointed out) is that you have derived Schrödinger's equation in three-dimensional space with your equation while my banana-analogy has not been so derived. As such, the analogy is ill-made.

 

Then why did you use the term “banana” if not to simply obfuscate matters? Use of a common word which in fact, by convention, does indeed presume one knows the “real nature of the elements of the universe” (assumes the reader knows what a banana is), a direct contradiction of your current post. Why didn't you have the decency to use a less weighted term; like “element”. At least you might then avoid implying that you intended to bring with the word all the common baggage of definition.

 

I see now. You assumed I chose an outrageous word and made an outrageous claim (about the universe being made of bananas) in order to mock what you guys were saying as outrageous. :( Whatever—I can only spend so much time allaying your assumptions about my motivations. I gain nothing from such a conversation, and I can't imagine what you gain by assuming the worst in what everyone says.

 

That is right, you have clearly made no attempt to understand that issue; instead, you want that issue explained in your paradigm where you presume dimensionality is a real characteristic of reality.

 

Anssi assumed the same thing. If two people have absolutely equivalent worldviews (including the definition of a dimension) except that one worldview is 3D while the other is 4D then the worldviews are mutually exclusive and they cannot both be useful to the same reality. One person will deduce that 6 2D faces are required to bind an element while the other deduces that 24 are required. They can't both be right (if they share the same reality).

 

That is my current understanding and it does not "presume dimensionality is a real characteristic of reality" but rather presumes that both worldviews have an equivalent definition of a dimension.

 

It appears to me that you simply wish very much to simply remain blind to the fact that there might be another way to look at the issue.

 

I believe it does appear that way to you. How very sad.

 

~modest

[Doctordick]

I believe it does appear that way to you. How very sad.

Yes it is sad. Real communication is often the hardest thing to achieve. Misunderstandings are the underlying source of almost all the problems in the world. I sincerely apologize for misinterpreting your responses.

 

The central misunderstanding here arises because you do not understand the derivation of my fundamental equation. That is very much my fault because the issue is not particularly simple (though it seems quite simple to me). I now understand a lot more about how what I say can be misinterpreted than I did twenty years ago and I am trying to start from scratch and create a presentation which will be clearer. That is the central purpose of my thread “What I believe an explanation is!” I was particularly distraught by (what appeared to be) your failure to respond to my last post there. Please forgive me.

 

Dick

[Doctordick]

I am trying to take the neccessary steps towards learning this whole subject related to your fundamental equation ... If there are more, and/or a recommended order to view these posts. I am interested.

My recommendation is that you do your best to follow the “What I believe an explanation is!” I intend to develop the whole thing there in as clear a manner as I can manage.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

Hi guys, sorry I've been a bit busy...

 

Now,

It appears that maybe you (the readers) interpreted that I was asking a question in the way that "I can't understand how to answer it", which I was not. I was recognizing a problem that seemed to me to be a common road block that people would run into.

 

Oh I see, yes, I did misinterpret you there (and I was wondering what happened to you there ), sorry about that.

 

Anyway, yeah you may be right, it might be easier to see some aspects of this issue when you know about relativity and quantum mechanics and especially if you know about the different ontological interpretations of those theories. On the other hand, when people have invested a lot of time on understanding those theories, they are also more and more aligned to think in those terms and interpret some features of DD's work as merely semantical distortions on the standard ideas.

 

I think, some people just are more able to question their (hidden) beliefs and end up thinking more about how do they know anything.

 

At any rate, it certainly doesn't help that most mainstream science publications use really, really really bad language on a regular basis. It always seems to be whatever sounds cool, like "scientists suspect that reality is actually made out of tiny strings", as oppose to talking about how things can be modeled. From my perspective, that sort of language always sounds about as smart as "scientists suspect reality is actually made out of tiny doughnuts" :confused: you know exactly what I mean by this right? vibrating strings, doughnuts... are macroscopic behaviour first of all, and semantically defined second of all.

 

Or you know, "does dark matter exists". Well, define it as "substance that only has got gravitational effect but doesn't affect anything else", then yes you can say "it exists" with the exact same confidence as you can say "electrons exist", as, we see its effect every day.

 

On the other hand, define it as something that has got a gravitational effect, AND that you can go and give a hug to, then no, we don't yet know if it exists, as we have yet to give dark matter a hug.

 

OR, you can take a step back and redefine what "gravitation" means (as in TeVes and the variations of). Equally valid!

 

The mainstream publications always imply that it is the ontological form of reality that is under discussion, and at the same breath they imply that things like "occam's razor" yield us some answers... it's so tiring to me, honestly... :I

 

(And btw if they understood the epistemological issues involved, even to a slightest degree, then everybody would have been made explicitly aware a long time ago that relativistic simultaneity is a feature of a specific way of modeling the situation - just as an example - and we would have a lot less bickering in the world)

 

Anyway, sorry again I misread you, I was too hasty.

 

Oh, on the use of the word "theory", there's a good reason why DD's work really should not be classified as "theory". Like I said before:

 

Very important to understand that we are not here theorizing "what reality is like" or "how reality behaves". Not a "theory", and not an argument about ontological reality at all.

 

What it is, it's an examination of tautologous relationships. If you accept "x", "y" follows.

 

What is significant is that "x" here is "the unavoidable characteristics of any self-coherent worldview", and "y" is Schrödinger's equation.

 

It's not a theory, the same way that "1 + 1 equals 2" is not classified as a "theory", in the sense that it does not amount to any argument about reality.

 

Schrödinger's Equation is reached through algebraic manipulation, so, it's validity rests on the validity of the mathematical tools used, like the validity of any exploration of tautologous relationships through algebra. It never really comes in contact with reality itself, and yet it explains why we see reality this way. That's sort of the point of the whole work, so, that's why DD is so adamant about not calling it a "theory", and I also think that it would only serve to confuse things.

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

While reading other responses, I thought this might be helpful:

 

Roadmap through this thread

 

This thread has been through a lot (a week from now will be its 2 year anniversary), and it's been essentially restarted couple of times, so, I guess I should have expected there to be a lot of confusion... I'll just point out what's happened by now.

 

First, this thread should be viewed as an expanded explanation of this page:

User:UniversalExplanation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you understand the issue, and if you know your math, that page is all you need to read, to end up to the "fundamental equation", which is simply a succint expression of those "general symmetry & self-coherence requirements" common to all valid probability functions. That equation is then serving as the starting point, to derive Schrödinger's Equation, among other things.

 

Posts #1 - #32

The OP started with discussion of the common "chicken vs egg" problem with ontology; "how do we get to know how to interpret sensory data without first knowing what reality is like?" to put it bluntly. That's went on for a while without anyone getting any wiser, apparently. That's the first time this thread died, and I think you can pretty much skip all of it. (Maybe skim through to see that it's pretty much the same complaints being repeated)

 

In the meantime, DD and I started talking about this same issue in a different thread in a different forum. There was yet another "is time an illusion" thread at Physics Forums, and it kind of got hijacked into a discussion of the actual meat of DD's work. The actual thread has started 3 years ago, and it is very long and has got a lot of unnecessary noise in it. Also, a lot of the discussion between me and DD involved me trying to learn the necessary math concepts (I had absolutely 0 math experience, and really needed a lot of help).

 

At any rate, post #33 links to the relevant posts about the actual deduction of the fundamental equation, and every tiny step is discussed in significat detail in those posts (albeit, there is also a lot of noise in between, and it should really be condensed)

 

The discussion from Physics Forums carried on to this thread, from post #34 onwards. Quite a bit of philosophical discussion, but also a lot of math, which is just me trying to learn the necessary concepts. Again, due to my lack of experience with math, pretty much all the algebraic steps have been laid down quite explicitly for anyone to follow, if necessary. I.e. we go through all of this in VERY detailed manner; if you are patient, you don't need to know any math as you can learn everything you need from this thread!

 

Actually the discussion moves over to the derivation of Schrödinger Equation, with the same significant detail, for anyone who wants to follow it.

 

While the discussion about the math steps was going on, people started talking about this thread at another "time" thread, and I gave a quick overview about what this thread is about, posting that as post #272

 

And at post #282 this thread dies again, and the math discussion continues over at a fresh thread dedicated to the derivation of Schrödinger:

 

That was the second time this thread died. But, it didn't stay dead, and post #283 was my attempt to explain what this is about to Rade.

 

And that discussion is still going on here.

 

EDIT: And btw, for anyone who actually knows their math, it is probably easier to follow DDs new attempt to explain it in the new thread.

 

-Anssi

[arkain101]

Firstly, I want to appologize myself, for the fact that I don't very often provide a response that quotes sections throughout large posts such as the one you just did. The reason why is my sleep schedule is off the charts right now.. Somtimes I am just fuzzy tired like I am right now.. To be of no concern though. I am just currently not employed, and have all the free time to stay up late, or nap, or sleep in.. I've just kind of tossed routine out of the window, so I never really know when to expect that clear thinking time zone to pop up, where I can really get involved in a post.

 

Secondly,

Thanks for responding, and I follow quite clearly, but believe me, I will be reading it again, as I usually do read posts 2 or 3 times that are of interest to me.

 

Lastly, I wanted to share a bit of an interesting night last night that is related to this whole discussion. But just before I get to that, I thought I'd add a bit lead up background? I've been reading through the basic's here on these forums, checking my conclusions with what you people are presenting here. It was not even a month ago that I did not know the definition to epistemology and ontology. Nor have I really studied anything directed related to philosphy on purpose (ya know what I mean) (people calling me a philosopher before I even knew much about what that embodied, but none the less, one could just say it was my way of doing things before really being shown). Anyway, I came to many these conclusions, related to the epi and ontol concepts we are talking about here, just from my own observation and analysis and logical deduction. Thankfully however, these topics just recently opened me up to a language I could put these ideas into, and it really cleared up my ability to comprehend and see contrasts. Anyway, that is jut me blabbing a bit about myself and how I got to this stage. It has been a 3 or 4 year journey, just grasping it on my own time and methods..

 

Okay, so to the interesting night. As I have been browsing through, I was trying to start with the basics before moving into other things. So last night I decided it was about time to learn a bit bout, what exactly this "Schrödinger equation" was all about. So I got reading about it, and I know I've scanned through these things before on wiki, but I really dug in this time and tried to grasp it as much as possible.. but this time I really got a good hold on the material and I opened more link to learn a bit more about specific parts and terms, and I suddenly so much clicked in a way that it never had before.. all these things I've heard a thousand times, just as words describing something, but I had no sense of the essence of exactly all those words meant..

 

I thought about starting a topic sharing these topics that really interested me, but it mostly relates to here and what we are doing so I'll just post a brief summary of what material I was getting into.

 

 

 

 

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, especially quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes in time. It is as central to quantum mechanics as Newton's laws are to classical mechanics.

 

In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum state, also called a wavefunction or state vector, is the most complete description that can be given to a physical system. Solutions to Schrödinger's equation describe not only atomic and subatomic systems, electrons and atoms, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe. The equation is named after Erwin Schrödinger, who discovered it in 1926.[1]

 

Schrödinger's equation can be mathematically transformed into Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, and into Feynman's path integral formulation. The Schrödinger equation describes time in a way that is inconvenient for relativistic theories, a problem which is not as severe in Heisenberg's formulation and completely absent in the path integral.

 

-----------------------

 

Main article: Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation

 

Einstein interpreted Planck's quanta as photons, particles of light, and proposed that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency, a mysterious wave-particle duality. Since energy and momentum are related in the same way as frequency and wavenumber in relativity, it followed that the momentum of a photon is proportional to its wavenumber.

 

DeBroglie hypothesized that this is true for all particles, for electrons as well as photons, that the energy and momentum of an electron are the frequency and wavenumber of a wave. Assuming that the waves travel roughly along classical paths, he showed that they form standing waves only for certain discrete frequencies, discrete energy levels which reproduced the old quantum condition.

 

Following up on these ideas, Schrödinger decided to find a proper wave equation for the electron. He was guided by Hamilton's analogy between mechanics and optics, encoded in the observation that the zero-wavelength limit of optics resembles a mechanical system--- the trajectories of light rays become sharp tracks which obey an analog of the principle of least action. Hamilton believed that mechanics was the zero-wavelength limit of wave propagation, but did not formulate an equation for those waves. This is what Schrödinger did, and a modern version of his reasoning is reproduced in the next section. The equation he found is (in natural units):

 

[math] i \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi(x,\,t)=-\frac{1}{2m}\nabla^2\Psi(x,\,t) + V(x)\Psi(x,\,t)[/math]

 

Using this equation, Schrödinger computed the spectral lines for hydrogen by treating a hydrogen atom's single negatively charged electron as a wave, \Psi(x,\,t)\;, moving in a potential well, V, created by the positively charged proton. This computation reproduced the energy levels of the Bohr model.

 

But this was not enough, since Sommerfeld had already seemingly correctly reproduced relativistic corrections. Schrödinger used the relativistic energy momentum relation to find what is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation in a Coulomb potential:

 

[math] \left(E + {e^2\over r} \right)^2 \psi(x) = - \nabla^2\psi(x) + m^2 \psi(x)[/math]

 

He found the standing-waves of this relativistic equation, but the relativistic corrections disagreed with Sommerfeld's formula. Discouraged, he put away his calculations and secluded himself in an isolated mountain cabin with a lover.[citation needed]

 

While there, Schrödinger decided that the earlier nonrelativistic calculations were novel enough to publish, and decided to leave off the problem of relativistic corrections for the future. He put together his wave equation and the spectral analysis of hydrogen in a paper in 1926.[2] The paper was enthusiastically endorsed by Einstein, who saw the matter-waves as the visualizable antidote to what he considered to be the overly formal matrix mechanics.

 

The Schrödinger equation tells you the behaviour of ψ, but does not say what ψ is. Schrödinger tried unsuccessfully, in his fourth paper, to interpret it as a charge density.[3] In 1926 Max Born, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, successfully interpreted ψ as a probability amplitude[4]. Schrödinger, though, always opposed a statistical or probabilistic approach, with its associated discontinuities; like Einstein, who believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to an underlying deterministic theory, Schrödinger was never reconciled to the Copenhagen interpretation.[5]

 

 

 

 

 

Wave function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A wave function or wavefunction is a mathematical tool used in quantum mechanics to describe any physical system. It is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into the complex numbers. The laws of quantum mechanics (i.e. the Schrödinger equation) describe how the wave function evolves over time. The values of the wave function are probability amplitudes — complex numbers — the squares of the absolute values of which give the probability distribution that the system will be in any of the possible states.

 

It is commonly applied as a property of particles relating to their wave-particle duality, where it is denoted ψ(position,time) and where | ψ | 2 is equal to the chance of finding the subject at a certain time and position.[1] For example, in an atom with a single electron, such as hydrogen or ionized helium, the wave function of the electron provides a complete description of how the electron behaves. It can be decomposed into a series of atomic orbitals which form a basis for the possible wave functions. For atoms with more than one electron (or any system with multiple particles), the underlying space is the possible configurations of all the electrons and the wave function describes the probabilities of those configurations.

 

 

 

 

Potential well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A potential well is the region surrounding a local minimum of potential energy. Energy captured in a potential well is unable to convert to another type of energy (kinetic energy in the case of a gravitational potential well) because it is captured in the local minimum of a potential well. Therefore, a body may not proceed to the global minimum of potential energy, as it would naturally tend to due to entropy.

 

Energy may be released from a potential well if sufficient energy is added to the system such that the local minimum is surmounted. In quantum physics, potential energy may escape a potential well without added energy due to the probabilistic characteristics of quantum particles; in these cases a particle may be imagined to tunnel through the walls of a potential well.

 

The graph of a 2D potential energy function is a potential energy surface that can be imagined as the Earth's surface in a landscape of hills and valleys. Then a potential well would be a valley surrounded on all sides with higher terrain, which thus could be filled with water (i.e., be a lake) without any water flowing away toward another, lower minimum (i.e. sea level).

 

In the case of gravity, the region around a mass is a gravitational potential well, unless the density of the mass is so low that tidal forces from other masses are greater than the gravity of the body itself.

 

A potential hill is the opposite of a potential well, and is the region surrounding a local maximum.

[arkain101]

It was when I really understood this statement here:

 

The Schrödinger equation tells you the behaviour of ψ, but does not say what ψ is. Schrödinger tried unsuccessfully, in his fourth paper, to interpret it as a charge density.[3] In 1926 Max Born, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, successfully interpreted ψ as a probability amplitude[4].

 

Most importantly, this part here: The Schrödinger equation tells you the behaviour of ψ, but does not say what ψ. is

 

And that because: "Solutions to Schrödinger's equation describe not only atomic and subatomic systems, electrons and atoms, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe"

 

It was when I started understanding all of this that I really got a much better understanding the heavier math work being discussed here, and what exactly DD's math was trying to accomplish (accomplished w/e).

 

I really agree that a person has to get a strong understanding of these maths and physics, to even start to have a clue what DD's fundamental equation is expressing.

 

I look forward to picking those equations apart... and understanding further.. Now that these things have "clicked", I feel a lot more prepared to get into the heavier parts of discussion..

 

Great Stuff.

[AnssiH]

Clearly the difference (as Anssi has now pointed out) is that you have derived Schrödinger's equation in three-dimensional space with your equation while my banana-analogy has not been so derived. As such, the analogy is ill-made.

 

I think the fact that you originally missed this tells something about how confusing this thread has become, and was the reason for my previous post...

 

I think my trouble is the leap from 'a consistent (or internally consistent perhaps) explanation of unknown data' to what often seems characterized in this thread: 'a useful explanation for any given universe or any given reality'. If I accepted that DD's fundamental equation is indeed something that any consistent explanation of an unknown reality must follow then it would not immediately follow that any explanation derived from the fundamental equation would be a useful explanation for *any* realty. With the example I've been using:

 

If Newtonian mechanics in 2 dimensions is a useful and self-consistent explanation for some unknown data (or reality) then it should obey the fundamental equation. If Newtonian mechanics in 3 dimensions is a useful and self-consistent explanation for some unknown data (or reality) then it should obey the fundamental equation. It does not follow that deriving 2 dimensional Newtonian mechanics from the fundamental equation means that it will be a useful explanation for any given reality. It's a converse error.

 

Now, I may be right and I may be wrong about this.

 

Maybe so, I think if you dwell on that possibility, perhaps it is possible to point out that by an amazing guesswork, and if ontological reality was appropriate for it, one might come across definitions that yielded absolutely correct predictions for all our past. I think, if one wants to cover that possibility too, we should perhaps say something like "if any reality is expressed by first transforming it to "patterns", that are then transformed to a self-coherent model of persistent entities, then the probability of specific future for those self-defined persistent entities can be properly expressed via Schrödinger's equation"

 

Meaning, that's just one way to do it, and if instead of following the general symmetry requirements during making your world model, you rather made just the proper guesses about the ontological reality, and the ontological reality really was a set of persistent entities, and their behaviour was proper for absolute prediction (no unaccountable feedback from the rest of the universe etc), then perhaps you could land upon a more accurate model of reality.

 

There are a lot of difficult details involved with that idea, and I think it would be a good idea to look at the epistemological analysis first in terms of what it explains about our current physics models, before going into that issue. (Especially its implications to Bell Experiments are in my opinion quite striking)

 

But, regardless, I find it troubling that in bringing up the question I've yet to see it resolved by anybody addressing the issue or explaining the analysis. In fact, I've been away from this thread for a couple days (been too busy) and I return to find I've developed some interesting motives in my absence:

 

I can honestly say that I just tried to explain, as best I could, how that result would be within the realm of possibility. As I assumed you had picked up that it was the results of the analysis that implied it, so then it just sounded like you felt its results were non-sense. I.e. I felt like you were uninterested to even look at the proof.

 

Nevertheless, I must say;

 

If two people have absolutely equivalent worldviews (including the definition of a dimension) except that one worldview is 3D while the other is 4D then the worldviews are mutually exclusive and they cannot both be useful to the same reality.

 

Unless I'm misinterpreting you in some very strange way, that is unequivocally false. They can certainly both describe the same reality in a manner that yields proper predictions, much the same way as Minkowski Spacetime can be viewed as a description of 4 dimensional persistent objects (static, or perhaps following some multiverse scheme, dynamic?), or 3 dimensional persistent objects governed by very specific dynamics.

 

The problem in your example is simply that...

 

One person will deduce that 6 2D faces are required to bind an element while the other deduces that 24 are required. They can't both be right (if they share the same reality).

 

...you have restricted their worldviews more than necessary. They are not both forced to see those 2D faces as 2D faces in their conception of reality, and judging from your posts, I think you should easily understand why "they are not forced", yes? (their perception being their interpretation of the raw data and all that)

 

And if you follow the epistemological analysis all the way to Schrödinger's Equation, I think you can see more about that issue; that if the same raw data is available to both, what happens is simply that they'd come to conceive the same data in terms of very different looking persistent entities. In the form of defined entities, there just couldn't be things disappearing and re-appearing in manners that would break the self-coherence & symmetry requirements.

 

I'm sorry if you feel like I'm just repeating the same argument over and over. I don't want you to feel like I've just made things up or otherwise given a coloured picture to you just for keeping you motivated; I just really think this exact issue is resolved by the epistemological analysis. And thus, perhaps it is not necessary to dwell on this "conceptual explanation".

 

-Anssi

[arkain101]

I'm sorry if you feel like I'm just repeating the same argument over and over. I don't want you to feel like I've just made things up or otherwise given a coloured picture to you just for keeping you motivated; I just really think this exact issue is resolved by the epistemological analysis. And thus, perhaps it is not necessary to dwell on this "conceptual explanation".

Agreed. Anything our mind is going to be able to imagine or comprehend is going to be, at its max dimensional representation, 3 dimensional. Regardless of the geometry or math, and the scale an illustration is designed to represent. When we discuss anything visual and/or represent anything visual, when we put out imagination aside, what is left behind will be a product of our macroscopic 3D world.

 

Even something 2D is a concept. Like a square. You can't construct a square in the ontological sense, that is actually 2D in our epistemological world view. When we go to truly examine it, it will be 3D. Anything that is infact 2D, like the shapes and things on this computer screen are mental concepts of shapes, but what it really is, is a computer screen, and dots, and width, and length, and thickness. And furthermore, what those things really are, is unaquivacally unknown.

 

Its true to mention a person educated on the mathematics will understand that a multidimensional illustration may have some complex behaviors. A the same time, if a child came up and examined the illustration he might say something like, "Hey that looks like a Turkey", and in the end that is the extent of its expression realistically.