Opinions on the fundamental nature of reality.

[Qfwfq]

As far as I can see we are gradually getting nowhere.

Alas, I fear so too.

 

I can only guess that your real purpose in this endeavorer is to set things up for some gross misinterpretation of what I am talking about so you can create some contrived straw man to tear to pieces.

No, I only try to make some sense of your posts and website.

 

And, furthermore, I cannot comprehend your position. Is it your position that there are no constraints on a valid explanation?

No, my position is just that nobody seems able to understand what you're on about.

 

If you don't see a need for "symmetry arguments" you clearly have no comprehension of what I am doing (which actually seems to be very much a fact).

:)

Goodness Gracious!!! I simply asked about what you purport to be adding to current ideas on the topic. I still fail to see what you claim to add to any other topic.

 

I think comunication fails because of language difference. Also, you blatantly deny having said things when I remark on them or ask for clarification, not only in cases where I have criticized what you have said.

 

I quite agree with Erasmus about supplying simple examples, this might help to illustrate your model. There's no point at all in replying as if that would mean restricing the universality of it. You keep adopting a strategy of as-if replies that gets us nowhere and only exhausts our patience.

 

I'm still at a loss to understand the meaning of the set D but I think it's just because I lack the patience and can't afford much time to go through your prolix ramblings and try to decipher your obscure meanings and definitions, only to find no added value. You claim to base QM on fundamental things, without the need for the usual axioms, but I still haven't been able to follow that far.

[Racoon]

Now. I think, is the time to draw the attention of the viewers of this thred ao my earlier thread "the language of elites

 

I already said, on your thread

HallenRM

 

Latin is the Language of elites! :)

Dead languages do Not talk back!

 

Greek is up there too! :)

 

Not Looking for psychological warmth,

Racoon

[Doctordick]

But, doesn't this fact point to elitism. A method to keep the common person out of the elite club.

I think it can be and may actually be used by some to that purpose but it shouldn't be seen as a block to anyone really serious about understanding. With regard to my stuff, you may very well be as close to understanding me as anyone else. Now I never would have seen what I saw if I had not had the education I had, but what I am trying to explain is actually quite simple even if the consequences are very profound.

 

To a great extent, I feel very much like I am between a rock and a hard place (so to speak). The rock is the inadequate technical education found in most people on forums such as this; it tends to lead them to think what I am saying is over their head, which I don't think it is. And the hard place is the massive amount of unwarranted assumptions brought in by the educated faction; they keep trying to analyze it from the perspective of the authorities. All that information on the details of the bricks leads them to ignore the walls.

 

After reading over reactions to my earlier posts, it is apparent that no one seems to comprehend what I mean when I speak of the abstract concept, "an explanation". Everyone seems to presume I am creating a model for the purpose of representing explanations which is not at all what I am doing. I am modeling the concept of "an explanation" so I can make statements about the fundamental constraints on explanations in general.

And a Hilbert space is simply a space defined with a positive definite inner product. The 3D space we are using must have such a function inner product for psi to make any sense.

You are confusing two very different concepts. The elements of a Hilbert space are mathematical functions. When I brought in the (x,tau,t)space, I called it a Euclidean space. Technically I was wrong to do that as the only aspects of Euclid's space of interest to me was the orthogonal nature of the axes and the innate ability of people to visualize a three dimensional space. I suppose I should have called it a three dimensional plot of the references to the elements of C. Now Psi can be considered as residing in an n dimensional Hilbert space but I don't think that is really a beneficial way of viewing it. (Of course, that's just an opinion.)

What I was requesting was that you apply your model of an explanation to something ALREADY mathematical, not because I believe your equation unnecessary but because I'd like to see it applied to something.

Applying the equation means relating the solutions to a particular explanation; understanding what the solutions tell one about the explanation. The equation is a fundamental constraint on the explanation if and only if all the information on which the explanation depends is contained in C (and D except for the fact that D is a component of the explanation).

For instance, the integers have a natural mapping to the number line, so why not give a concrete example by using your equation to work through an explanation of the integers. (not in English, but in mathematics).

Perhaps you will understand the meaningless of your question if I go ahead and give you an example of what you are asking for.

 

There are an infinite number of ways of casting C (what is known) into a set of numbers. So, suppose I attach a specific number to each and every neuron in the brain of a west Amazon Indian of the Pirahã tribe. Suppose that I have some piece of modern equipment which will detect the activation of each and every neuron. Let B(t) be the collection of neurons actively responding at time t. Now I will allow you to attempt a communication of your explanation of the integers to that "student" (it will probably take a lot of time and effort on your part). I presume that, after sufficient time, an understanding of that explanation will begin to arise in his mind. (An explanation based entirely on C.) He will presume that he understands the explanation (though that understanding may not be exactly what you intended) when he is no longer surprised by additional information (i.e., he will expect) certain patterns of activity in his mind (there will be B(t) that he will expect and others that he will not expect). It is his personal explanation which provides him with those expectations. His expectations are a function of what collection of neurons we are talking about (are they active or not). It's a mathematical function of which neurons your comments excite! In fact, it is exactly the function I have defined to be the inner product of Psi. And, if that is the case, than Psi must obey my fundamental equation (or would have to if C did indeed represent all the information available from A).

 

Now, I have to comment here that my equation does not apply in the above circumstance. The equation does not apply because we have made some assumptions about A not represented in C: we have defined the elements of A to be neurons in the brain of an individual. By doing so, we have already heaped on a huge collection of concepts and ideas which have placed constraints on that explanation far beyond reckoning.

 

It is a funny thing, but most philosophers I talk to will start by saying, "the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure" and they will immediately follow that with reams upon reams of things they know and want to use to defend their ideas. Well, I would like to start from the fact that I know nothing. My first step is to define an analytical truth; it's true because it's defined to be true. There are a lot of people out there who have spent their lives defining and examining analytical truths; they're called mathematicians. I define Mathematics to be the invention and study of self consistent systems and I will leave the proof of validity of mathematics to others.

 

I have defined an explanation to be a method of obtaining expectations from known information. That's an analytic truth by virtue of its definition. One of the problems I apparently have in communicating my thoughts is that few of you consider that definition worth thinking about. You apparently have some other idea as to what makes up an explanation. Let me ask you, would you include something you couldn't understand in the category you define as an explanation? What I am trying to get at is the fact that your ability to understand something is a very big part of your accepting it as an explanation.

 

Erasmus00 for instance, is interested in an explanation of the integers. I am sure he has some "explanation" in mind. Let him write an essay where he explains integers and submits it to me through the web. I'll hash the file with a private encryption program I happen to have and then, if anyone asks me for an explanation of the integers, I'll send them a copy of that encrypted file. What's wrong with this picture? Is that or is that not "an explanation"? I say it is not because it does not provide a method of determining expectations (and actually, the encryption has little to do with it). He thinks of it as an explanation because he assumes whole bodies of information are already understood. When he drops that assumption, the thing doesn't even fulfill his own definition of "an explanation".

No, I only try to make some sense of your posts and website.

Well you are certainly failing at that. If it's not intentional then the only other possibility which occurs to me is that you are trying to read more into it than is there.

No, my position is just that nobody seems able to understand what you're on about.

"On about"??? What does that phrase mean? I am building a general model of "a method of generating expectations from given information". What is so difficult to understand about that?

:confused:

Goodness Gracious!!! I simply asked about what you purport to be adding to current ideas on the topic. I still fail to see what you claim to add to any other topic.

What topics are you talking about? You couldn't possibly be referring to building a general model of "a method of generating expectation from given information".

I quite agree with Erasmus about supplying simple examples, this might help to illustrate your model. There's no point at all in replying as if that would mean restricting the universality of it. You keep adopting a strategy of as-if replies that gets us nowhere and only exhausts our patience.

I don't think that is true. I think what is exhausting your patience is trying to fit what I am saying into your picture of what ought to be done. The problem being you don't have the slightest idea as to what ought to be done.

I'm still at a loss to understand the meaning of the set D ...

D consists of information we presume is valid as opposed to information which is valid. It is there for one purpose: to allow for the fact that some of the things we think are true are not true. It has to be in there unless you are going to hold that everything you think is true is true, a rather dogmatic position. I do not understand what you cannot understand about it. That D fulfills the definition of a set? That the elements of D can be labeled? That numerical references can be made to those elements? Those all seem like very simple steps to me. Certainly not "prolix ramblings"!

... and try to decipher your obscure meanings and definitions, only to find no added value.

What do you mean by "decipher", trying to fit what I am saying into your picture of what ought to be done? My deduction is that equation and nothing more. What other value do you want?

You claim to base QM on fundamental things, without the need for the usual axioms, but I still haven't been able to follow that far.

You can't follow me that far because I haven't gone that far at this point! Accept the fact that my fundamental equation follows from my definitions (or show me where the error in logic occurs) and we can start talking about solutions to that equation. Those solutions turn out to be quite surprising. But I certainly am not going bother trying to drag you through the solutions if you cannot even comprehend the necessity of the equation. If the paradigm is beyond you, what purpose does it serve to deduce the consequences.

 

Personally, I have the suspicion that you just cannot comprehend the idea that anything could come from something so simple. First try to understand the paradigm from whence that equation is derived and don't worry about where it leads. It leads where I said it leads and once you comprehend the paradigm, I'll show you how to solve the equation.

 

Why don't we get down to the topic of this thread: the validity of my fundamental equation under the paradigm laid forth. Is it or is it not a valid deduction?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00 for instance, is interested in an explanation of the integers. I am sure he has some "explanation" in mind...

 

I don't have any explanation in mind. I'm simply asking you to apply your general model to a simple case, so that I can see it used, and hopefully learn a bit. I'm asking, I guess, suppose the set A is the integers, or some set of information we can naturally map to the integers. What should psi look like? What about D? Given some sets B or C how can we solve C to arrive at psi? i.e., how do we apply this model to extract something out of it.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

Dick, almost every post of yours has been a prolix rambling and usually isn't very helpful in improving our comprehension. How am I to know if I'm reading in more than what is there? You make claims that go well beyond what is in your actual explanation of how to accomplish it, which isn't itself as clear as you like to think, and my trouble isn't my "picture of what ought to be done" it is solely that of trying to figure out your picture.

 

You give no inkling of exactly how sets A, B, C and D represent what you say they do and of exactly how this model defines your equations, but you expect us to already apppreciate the wonders of the equation's solutions. I see it vaguely as being similar to the construction of a Hilbert space, save that you appear to use real valued coefficients, and the Hilbertian product of psi by itself. How is the conjugation defined? The arbitrarity of the mappings doesn't help make the effectivity of the mathematical model very clear.

 

How, then, was I supposed to guess what to expect to understand so far and what not to?

 

The way it looks to me is like something much more general than the bare, basic QM formalism for representing the space of states of some system, We still haven't remotely seen what would give the various operators, or even the features of the states from which interference ensues. Wouldn't these steps amount to completing the axioms of QM? Or do you have them somehow following consequentially, and how?

[InfiniteNow]

Just watch... the Doc will fire back at both of you how you are simply choosing to attack and how stupid you are for missing something so blaringly obvious... without ever answering the questions you've posed. My crystal ball is all ramped up today... I have 87% confidence in this statement.

[ughaibu]

I reckon the equation should be demonstrated via the explanation of itself.

[Doctordick]

I don't have any explanation in mind.

A is defined to be an unknown set consisting of "what we want to explain". "Suppose the set A is the integers" is certainly not an unknown thing therefore nothing I am talking about is applicable; however, since you wanted an example of what I was talking about, the first step in the example had to be to manufacture a situation where the set A was an unknown. That is the reason I moved the circumstance over to different person who had no concept of an integer (the west Amazon Indian of the Pirahã tribe). So I could apply the model to his circumstance. The data he had to work with was what you provided him. :eek:

 

You say you had no explanation in mind. If that is the case, what does the word integer mean? If the only data you provided him with consisted of nothing more than naming integers, I doubt a lifetime would be sufficient for him to develop an explanation of integers having any bearing on what you think of as an integer. Certainly a child in school receives a lot more information than that before he begins to comprehend the concept of an integer. ;)

I'm simply asking you to apply your general model to a simple case, so that I can see it used, and hopefully learn a bit.

The process I am modeling is the development of "an explanation" from undefined information. The model of the information is the plot of points in the (x,tau,t) space. The explanation is the function psi which yields a probability for a specific B(t) in C. That's the model and that is all there is to it; not a thing more! My fundamental equation is a consequence of applying the model; the derivation I present is an application of the model which allows something of use to be extracted from it. That thing which is extracted from the model is the fundamental equation I deduce.

I'm asking, I guess, suppose the set A is the integers, or some set of information we can naturally map to the integers.

Then it wouldn't be unknown would it? :shrug:

What should psi look like?

That depends upon what you expect (what your explanation of C is). ;)

how can we solve C to arrive at psi?

That is exactly what my equation says: you solve that equation and you will have psi. I'll tell you what, from a collection of arbitrary undefined information, how do you determine what additional information you expect? And how do you decide if you should have confidence in those expectations? :eek_big:

 

My position is very simple, if I get enough of that arbitrary undefined information, I am apt to discover patterns in it. If, over time I see some of those patterns repeat, I am apt to expect to see them again and might name them so I can remember that I have seen them. You want a simple example. We are simply not talking about simple things here. :naughty:

How am I to know if I'm reading in more than what is there?

If you are reading anything into it you are reading more than what is there. :doh:

You make claims that go well beyond what is in your actual explanation of how to accomplish it,

And I will support every one of those claims if we ever get past my opening presentation. :eek_big:

You give no inkling of exactly how sets A, B, C and D represent what you say they do

I have utterly no comprehension of what you mean by that comment. A is an unknown set representing the unknown thing which is to be explained. A set can represent anything so please explain what you mean by "how" it represents what it represents. Or better yet, explain to me "how" x represents an unknown in algebra. All four of these sets are unknown things. Defining what they are is the very essence of explaining them. Until you come up with a way of labeling their elements, their elements are undefined. :rant:

 

I created these four sets because of the need to represent different characteristics of the information you have to work with in coming up with an explanation. A is what is to be explained (which must include information not available to you). C is what is available to you (and is obtained from A). B(t) is a change in C and D is what you think is available to you but which is really a figment of your imagination. Now, when you go to build explanations of things, which one of those four sets do you feel are immaterial to your problem? :hihi:

and of exactly how this model defines your equations,

That is right there in the presentation. The differentials come from shift symmetry in the arbitrary numerical references to elements (appendex 1) and the Dirac delta enforcement is detailed in appendex 2. :shrug:

but you expect us to already appreciate the wonders of the equation's solutions.

I have no such expectations at all. How can you appreciate something you are unaware of. I just comment on the solutions because I am aware of them and appreciate them. :ud:

How, then, was I supposed to guess what to expect to understand so far and what not to?

I only expect you to understand the derivation of that fundamental equation from the definitions given. Not an iota more! The differentials come from the freedom to attach the numerical labels on the elements anyway you wish and the delta function together with appropriate elements D can constrain C to whatever it is, no matter how arbitrary that might be. The equation essentially puts no constraints at all on what can be "explained" the constraints are entirely on internal consistency of the entire system and smooth transition to updates. All explanations are given by the rule (the probability of two elements having exactly the same label is zero) and the collection of labels given to elements, collections of elements and collections of such collections (a pretty open ended process). :hyper:

The way it looks to me is like something much more general than the bare, basic QM formalism

The following is essentially hand waving and is not to be taken as rigorous in any way, but look at the equation once. It can essentially be described as a simple propagating wave equation where the Dirac delta function performs the role of moving boundary conditions. Anyone familiar with physics is certainly aware of the fact that any wave solution or sum of solutions which satisfies the boundary conditions is a solution. Identification of one element existing at a particular position in our reference plot means the probability of it having been there is one (or at least something concentrated in that region). That probability function at that moment can be seen as analogous to a plucked string; the probability function disperses. :singer:

 

If that "pluck" is sufficiently gradual, the rate of dispersal becomes slow. This essentially yields the fact that if a pattern of data exists over and over, time after time, within the data being represented in our plot of information, the solution will be that the same pattern will be seen in the future. Also, if that pattern is seen shifted over some amount over and over, the probability will be that it will seen as shifted again. All in all, it should yield a very rational estimate of one's expectations. What is really astounding is what it actually yields when the solutions are examined in detail. :eek2:

 

Please, examine the defense of the equation carefully and tell me if you agree with it's validity or not. Once that question is settled, we can talk about the detailed solutions. That is where the interesting things begin to happen. ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Erasmus00]

Look, lets say the set A contains the counting numbers (1,2,3,4,5,...) etc. Obviously A is supposed to be unknown, but we pretened we don't know that. To see how the model works, we start with a situation in which we know what the outcome should be.

 

We use this to create a few sets B, i.e. (1,7,3,4,5), (1,9,2,3,4,4), (8,9,9,10,17,1). Maybe one of the sets has a few things we assume are in A but aren't (1,,665,3,4,5,6,7,.775).

 

So, use your model, given these sets B, how can I arrive at my "explanation" and get the set A?

-Will

[Qfwfq]

Dick, in order for us nitwits to get an abstract model straight, you'll have to accept that it might be necessary for us to see it applied to something simple. I can't say to what extent this is due to intrinsic difficuly in the abstract model, or to limited skills in bridging the difference between your and our understanding of it, but can't you just pretend that Erasmus and I were west Amazon Indians of the Pirahã tribe? Is it really futile to apply the model to something as if it wasn't known?

 

As for your challenge about the unknown x, I could tell you that x is an unknown ? (number?, real?, complex?, quaternion?, apple?, galaxy?) and insist that you just must understand how it is possible to determine it. You could have clear what I mean by "x is an unknown" and I could even perhaps specify "number" but you'll go blue in the face before understanding my method unless I say that it consists in knowing "something about the number, such as that 3x = 4". You might never get what I mean by "algebra" until I give you such clues. How about that as a simple case for applying your abstract model to?

 

We poah Injuns dunno wut da dang' woid 'aljubah' mean! Use yo' mahdul ta sho' us!

 

Which is the fundamental equation, extracted from the model, that you deduce? I'm not 100% sure if it is the one, reminescent of a Schrödinger equation for some Hamiltonian, which you derive from the anticommutator relations, so I can't be sure if I understand what you expect me to. Is it? Couldn't the equations in your website be numbered? Are those anticommutator relations the Lie algebra of your symmetry group? I took a closer look at them and their indices but it still isn't clear, what I'm still stuck on and comes before these is the set D and I'd like this to be clearer before dedicating more time to those indices. All appendix 2 says is what I had more or less reckoned from the Dirac times psi constraint, trivial enough, even I can understand it's the complement of a set (of B in the x-tau plane), but I don't get how this matches up with your more prosaic description: "a set I will call D which consists of information we presume is valid" ;)

 

Really, you're expecting people to sift through explanations that are comprehensible only to he who is trying to explain, as well as all the less essential stuff that you add including the excuses you make for our lack of understanding or criticism of some ungrounded arguments. It takes a lot of patience, as well as thick skin. You shouldn't be quite so upset if people find difficulty following you.

[Doctordick]

So, use your model, given these sets B, how can I arrive at my "explanation" and get the set A?

Oh, I had not realized that you didn't understand my definition of an explanation. I defined "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. First, you can not "get A", A is the source of your "valid" information not something you have the ability to "know". The central issue is that your expectations can be seen as a function of the numerical elements in B, something you can "know". I named the function psi. First, although you have already decided on a numerical reference for the elements of A one might think we could omit that step but your numbers are specific references to your set A and we cannot presume these are the labels our thinker will attach to those elements (remember, to him they are undefined). Also, you have not laid out the order index t so I will set one down.

 

The set C will consists of B(1) = (4,9,6,10), B(2) = (4,8,10,10,12), B(3) = (0,4,11,12,12,13), B(4) = (1,2,3,4,7,9,10). Now you suggest that the 0.665 and 0.775 (which I gave numerical labels 2 and 7) are additions to B(4) which arise because of set D. (Since we are apparently gods and thus know what A actually is we can tell the difference but our thinker can not) The model will then start with a table of psi!

 

psi(4,9,6,10,t=1) = ? from their explanation prior to t=1 and 1 for t>1

psi(4,8,10,10,12,t=2) = ? from their explanation prior to t=2 and 1 when t >2

psi(0,4,11,12,12,13,t=3) = ? from their explanation prior to t=3 and 1 when t>3

psi(1,2,3,4,7,9,10,t=4) = ? from their explanation prior to t=4 and 1 when t>4

 

Which at least makes the "explanation" consistent with C. Now 0.665 and 0.775 (2 and 7) are members of D: i.e., part of the students expectations (a figment of his imagination). Since I don't know what his expectations are (that is, I don't know what his explanation actually is), I have no way of adding any entries to that table of psi. (In fact, the entries I have given are not necessarily his explanation as humans quite often give explanations inconsistent with what actually happened.) I will nonetheless assume they are, i.e., I will assume his explanation is consistent with the facts. The question arises in my head as to why he decided to make the assumption those references 2 and 7 (0.665 and 0.775) should be in the entries; in what way did his explanation seem better when they were there? (Remember, D is part of the explanation and not actually derived from A. They are inserted because they are essential to the explanation hypothesized by the thinker.)

 

At any rate, whatever his explanation is, he should be able to give me his expectations for all entries to that table. If I ask him, what is your expectation for (1,3,4,5,t=6) and he has an explanation, he should be able to provide me with that answer. I could also ask him about (1,1,1,1,t=6) and an infinite number of additional possibilities. The question is, does there exist a procedure which will be perfectly consistent with all the members of any conceivable C derived from A and yet, at the same time, yield a decent rational probability for the actual new information. That is, given C+D up through B(tn-1) is the actual B(tn) seen as being within the expectations of their explanation? Another way of saying, are those expectations consistent with what happened?

 

I hold that my equation constitutes a procedure for generating expectations perfectly consistent with C+D. I hope this makes it clear that considering actual data is not a route to understanding the issue I am talking about. My equation is a logical construct and is perfectly true so long as the definitions given are adhered to.

Dick, in order for us nitwits to get an abstract model straight, you'll have to accept that it might be necessary for us to see it applied to something simple.

First, I do not think anyone here is a nitwit. And second, I no longer believe you are intentionally trying to create straw men. I think the source of the difficulty is that you don't comprehend what I am trying to do; you are not really differentiating between the concept "an explanation" and the thing "an explanation". You think I am trying to model the second when I am concerned solely with the first. It is your attempts to apply my comments to the second which are confusing you. The essence of the abstract concept is that the explanation is explaining something which is unknown in the absence of the explanation.

 

There is an overwhelming flaw in any procedure which is an attempt to apply my thoughts to a defined A. A definition of something is an explanation of what that thing is. Were you to give to an individual elements of something totally undefined to him (i.e., in the total absence of any other information), it is extremely unwarranted to assume that he would arrive at exactly the same definition you were using to produce that information. Particularly for a volume of information so small as to be presentable on a forum thread. Look at the exposition I laid out for Erasmus above. Now if you gave the same information to two different individuals who could discuss what they were getting, they could theorize about the algorithm behind the data and perhaps agree between themselves, but I doubt that explanation would bear much resemblance to that of the provider; at least not until their information had reached a rather exorbitant volume.

 

Now, I (being a god) happen to know that the information being given by Erasmus above is a random collection of elements from the set of real integers. Thus I can expand upon what information the thinker will be provided with over an extended period and can be pretty sure his eventual explanation of the information will be "it's random", which is not at all what I think Erasmus had in mind when he proposed the example but is the only conclusion possible given the constraints.

As for your challenge about the unknown x, I could tell you that x is an unknown ? (number?, real?, complex?, quaternion?, apple?, galaxy?) and insist that you just must understand how it is possible to determine it.

Once upon a time, say back when we were single celled animals, we had no idea of what the universe was (at least I suspect that is true) and reality could seriously be called an unknown! Now we have come a long way since then and I must insist that you understand that it is possible to get here from there (at least get a decent idea as to what reality is) by some method. I sincerely doubt a fertilized human egg comprehends the true nature of reality in all of its nuances. And yet, millions upon millions of those fertilized eggs grow up on a daily basis into entities which are able to make a great amount of sense of that undefined information they have received since the event of their fertilization. That problem is solved day in and day out by countless individuals who have spent less than twenty years on the issue; therefore, I conclude it is a solvable problem and is worth examining.

Is it really futile to apply the model to something as if it wasn't known?

No, what is futile is the idea of handling the information in small isolated pieces. When one does that, the conclusions which can be drawn are so limited as to be essentially useless. It is a problem which can only be handled in a holistic manner. Once it has been handled, it is then possible to deduce apparent results in limited cases but the reverse approach does not yield usable results. The problem here is that the scientific community always looks at the details under the presumption that their solution to the problem to date is correct. They need to step back to the very dawning of the problem and figure out how to solve it from scratch.

 

The critical issue here is that, when taken as a holistic problem, a valid solution to rational expectations must satisfy my equation. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that it is exactly the freedom to relabel (essentially redefine) the elements making up B which makes it possible to solve the problem; now, if I am correct, that makes for some very strange and interesting thoughts. Meanwhile, I would like the opportunity to show you that I am correct.

... but you'll go blue in the face before understanding my method unless I say that it consists in knowing "something about the number, such as that 3x = 4".

And you are going blue in the face because you refuse to accept the idea that "absolute internal consistency" could possibly be such a demanding constraint. Against that position, please note that the black body spectrum was obtained by the simple requirement of demanding kinematic consistency. Internal consistency is a far more demanding constraint than is usually realized.

How about that as a simple case for applying your abstract model to?

 

We poah Injuns dunno wut da dang' woid 'aljubah' mean! Use yo' mahdul ta sho' us!

Again, you are confusing modeling the abstract logical concept, "an explanation" with modeling a specific instance of "an explanation". My model is not a source of explanations, it is a model of "an explanation": i.e., a model of "a method of obtaining expectations consistent with the given information". You give me the explanation (in all its gruesome detail, leaving utterly no questions to be asked) and I would give you psi which represents it; however, I would probably give it to you in tabular form and it would probably be longer than the forum would tolerate. My equation tells you how to interpolate between known data under the rule specified by the Dirac constraint.

Which is the fundamental equation, extracted from the model, that you deduce?

I would stick it in right here if I knew how. You seem to be aware of a method of inserting images of equations as evidenced by your quote of my other paper in your response in the "What is time?" thread. Tell me how you did that and I'll quote the relevant material directly in this thread. Besides that, discussing the solutions will be much easier if I can quote the relevant equations in that procedure. :P

All appendix 2 says is what I had more or less reckoned from the Dirac times psi constraint, trivial enough, even I can understand it's the complement of a set (of B in the x-tau plane), but I don't get how this matches up with your more prosaic description: "a set I will call D which consists of information we presume is valid" :Tupac:

If the set D were to consist of the complement of B obtained from A then the Dirac constraint would constrain B obtained from A to be exactly what was actually obtained in every detail. That is the most extreme possible case and, if that case can be obtained, any case less extreme can be obtained. As portions of that complement are omitted, the constraint allows those portions to be possibilities for B obtained from A: i.e., the elements in C are less exactly set. ;)

 

I don't think I am as upset as you think I am. I just get a little perturbed sometimes when I can't understand what they are missing. It occurs to me that it could be the simplest and most necessary truths which are the most difficult to explain. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Qfwfq]

Yet another prolix ramble!

 

I would stick it in right here if I knew how. You seem to be aware of a method of inserting images of equations as evidenced by your quote of my other paper in your response in the "What is time?" thread. Tell me how you did that and I'll quote the relevant material directly in this thread. Besides that, discussing the solutions will be much easier if I can quote the relevant equations in that procedure.

That ought to be easier for you than it is for me, since they are on your website!

[img=hltp://your.website.doc/file/path/file.name]

In order to assist you, there is an icon above the box you type your prolix rambles into, it shows a tiny little sun near two mountains.

 

Anyway I saw the words "fundamental equation" at the start of appendix 3, confirming what I thought. So, just as I thought, it is:

I still haven't had quite the time to examine the derivation of it and you did not confirm or deny regarding your anticommutator relations as being the Lie algebra of some symmetry group.

 

If the set D were to consist of the complement of B obtained from A then the Dirac constraint would constrain B obtained from A to be exactly what was actually obtained in every detail. That is the most extreme possible case and, if that case can be obtained, any case less extreme can be obtained. As portions of that complement are omitted, the constraint allows those portions to be possibilities for B obtained from A: i.e., the elements in C are less exactly set.

Well, that's a relief!!!

 

So, D represents falsification and we an only work toward completing our knowledge of it; quite established in current epistemology. :hihi: What a dolt I must be, not having figured it out from such a crytsal clear definition as: "a set I will call D which consists of information we presume is valid."

[Doctordick]

Yet another prolix ramble!

Sorry about that, I was just trying to make things clear. I have a lot of trouble understanding exactly what your difficulties are. Most of the time I find your questions inapplicable to what I am talking about.

 

With regard to the image of the equation, I could swear I tried exactly that form and never got the result before. Maybe I live in a different reality??? Anyway, I have no idea what I was doing wrong before as it seems to work just fine now. And you are correct, "Fundamen.GIF" is the image of the fundamental equation. Thanks for the hand up; being able to show equations is a very important part of my arguments.

I still haven't had quite the time to examine the derivation of it and you did not confirm or deny regarding your anticommutator relations as being the Lie algebra of some symmetry group.

Now here you will have to excuse me as it has been almost forty years since I was involved in any of this stuff and I know my memory is not at all what I wish it was but it seems to me that the answer to your question seems to be yes. As I understand it the ant-commutation relationships are the essence of a "Lie algebra" and I suppose my alpha can be seen as forming a group in that same n dimensional Hilbert space everyone wants to see as representing the function psi; however, the beta would have to be in an n squared space. All I can say is that I didn't have that in mind when I wrote the equation. My only concern was the anti-commutation relationships.

 

Secondly, I wouldn't call what I do to get the fundamental equation a derivation. It is rather a simple assertion. Appendix 3 is a simple proof that the earlier constraints

 

 

together with

 

 

are satisfied by every solution to the fundamental equation so long as

 

and the frame of reference is what I define to be the "center of mass frame. And further that every solution to the original constraints (in that same frame) is a solution to the fundamental equation. This means the two representations of the constrains are perfectly equivalent.

 

Apparently, what is clear to one can be mud to another as I find the expression, ("So, D represents falsification and we an only work toward completing our knowledge of it; quite established in current epistemology"), to be as clear as mud! I have utterly no idea as to what you mean by, "we can only work toward completing our knowledge of it". The central issue of appendix 2 is that there always exists a set D which will allow the rule, "no two elements of information in any B(t) can be exactly the same", to constrain the expectations of B(t) to be exactly what the explanation requires, no matter what that explanation is (remember, the explanation is psi). That reduces the problem of specifying an explanation to specifying "what exists" whether it be real or a figment of your imagination (that is, part of C or D). The question, "what rule applies?", thus becomes a non issue.

 

If that is what you mean by what you say then I guess you understand what I am saying. It certainly should be clear to you that what the rules have to be is a function of what exists (that's a pretty simple issue) but I think the fact that there exists a single rule which will serve for any explanation given our freedom to yield existence to things is quite a profound point.

 

At any moment in the history of explaining events, the explanation is based on information which comes from two different sources C which is the actual information which must be explained (you can call it what is actually real if you wish) and D that information which must be true only because it is required by the current explanation. A new explanation must explain the same C as the old explanation but it may introduce both deletions and/or additions to D. In explanations of heat, phlogiston came and went. It was pretty clearly a member of D but we couldn't prove that until it was found that a better explanation existed which did not require it.

 

I am sorry if I have been tiresome again, I am really trying very hard to communicate my ideas. I personally think the difficulty is that my perspedtive is so far from the norm. Please examine my deductions under my definition of an explanation and not your personal concept of an explanation. Or if you do the latter, at least explain where my definition is unacceptable.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

PS Perhaps I should change that quote to, "The simplest and most necessary truths are the most difficult to communicate" by Doctordick.

[Qfwfq]

I wouldn't call what I do to get the fundamental equation a derivation. It is rather a simple assertion.

You mean it's an axiom? I called it a derivation because you had written:

I only expect you to understand the derivation of that fundamental equation from the definitions given. Not an iota more!

 

The central issue of appendix 2 is that there always exists a set D which will allow the rule' date=' "no two elements of information in any [b']B[/b](t) can be exactly the same", to constrain the expectations of B(t) to be exactly what the explanation requires, no matter what that explanation is (remember, the explanation is psi).

Well, that changes my understanding of D, but it doesn't match so well with the Dirac delta and I still can't gather how to interpret "no two elements of information in any B(t) can be exactly the same".

 

At the moment it seems as if elements of D are subject to being either verified or falsified, and in the first cased they would be moved into C.

 

In explanations of heat, phlogiston came and went. It was pretty clearly a member of D but we couldn't prove that until it was found that a better explanation existed which did not require it.

Now that, again, sounds more like falsification.

 

I think one trouble is that asserts keep changing, like I might say that "apes are a type of monkey", next time I say "no, apes and monkeys are two different things, although they are both primates, like we are" and the next time I say "but, apes are monkeys, they're just one of the various kinds of monkey, even we're a kind of monkey too!". It isn't easy to follow your line, even at the most overall level...

 

:lol:

[questor]

Dr. D., if you want to know why people haven't been jumping at the chance

to discuss your treatise, or whatever you want to call it, let me offer you some personal comments. you asked why, so here's why:

1. overly verbose

2. pedantic

3. dismissive of others comments

4. subject matter of minimal interest to most posters

5. minimal reward for the effort

6. only a few able to do the math

7. most posters like short, succinct posts they can dialogue with

i don't mean to say your thoughts are unimportant, i just think you're dealing with the wrong audience. even if we understood and agreed with your positions, there is nothing we can do about it, and maybe the issue is not as important as you think.

[Doctordick]

You mean it's an axiom?

One can not "prove" an axiom! :eek2:

Appendix 3 is a simple proof that the earlier constraints

 

 

together with

 

 

are satisfied by every solution to the fundamental equation so long as

 

and the frame of reference is what I define to be the "center of mass frame. And further that every solution to the original constraints (in that same frame) is a solution to the fundamental equation. This means the two representations of the constrains are perfectly equivalent.

An assertion may be a valid step in a deduction if that assertion can be proved.

Well, that changes my understanding of D, but it doesn't match so well with the Dirac delta and I still can't gather how to interpret "no two elements of information in any B(t) can be exactly the same".

When B is represented via numerical labels (that is exactly why tau was originally introduced). You don't seem to read anything I say (perhaps you just find it too tiresome). What I am saying is really quite simple.

 

First, the common scientific paradigm is chock full of assumptions and until an error somewhere in those assumptions is demonstrably wrong, the scientific community believes they are correct. That is exactly the foundation of any religion and that is what makes the current paradigm a religion. Secondly, I begin by pointing out that, no matter what it is (and here I am talking about is, not what "might be"), its elements may be referred to by numerical labels (which can be defined when you know what you are talking about). Naming those elements prior to understanding what you are talking about is an assumptive shot in the dark. What numbers you chose to place on those elements is a totally open issue having no bearing on the solution; this leads to the differential constraint on an internally consistent explanation (some function of those numerical labels). That proof is in appendix 1.

 

The final step is to realize that all common explanations include elements which are assumed (not what "is" or what "might be") but purely required by the explanation (but whatever they are, they have to obey exactly the same rules as what "is"). The complete collection of this information (which is what the explanation is based on) I call C and D. In the "materialist" philosophy, everything is C. The "solipsist" philosophy, everything is D. In my paradigm, it is a mix. Since what constitutes D is a totally open issue (except for the fact that it must obey the rules embedded in that explanation whatever it is) it turns out that the Dirac delta function constraint (within the acceptable explanation: that function I call psi) can constrain the elements of C to whatever they happen to be (that proof is given in appendix 2).

 

Appendix 3 is a proof that my fundamental equation is an exact equivalent to those two constraints. And that is all there is to it.

At the moment it seems as if elements of D are subject to being either verified or falsified, and in the first cased they would be moved into C.

The existence of elements is not what is either verified or falsified in any scientific work. Explanations (quite often known as theories) are verified or falsified! Now verification of a theoretical prediction is usually taken as evidence that the elements which make up that theory are correct, but it cannot be taken as proof. Likewise, falsification of a theoretical prediction is usually taken as evidence that some element of that explanation is false but the scientists may pick the wrong one.

I think one trouble is that asserts keep changing

No, it is your interpretation of what I am saying that keeps changing.

1. overly verbose

For a totally new paradigm, I think it is fairly concise.

2. pedantic

So, how can one not be pedantic in a specific point by point deduction.

3. dismissive of others comments

Sorry about that.

4. subject matter of minimal interest to most posters

I am not bothered by lack of interest; in fact, I am probably dismissive because too many people already make comments when they are actually not interested.

5. minimal reward for the effort

What, they want training treats?

6. only a few able to do the math

Well, I will explain any of the math if they would ask. Most of it is pretty simple.

7. most posters like short, succinct posts they can dialogue with

i don't mean to say your thoughts are unimportant, i just think you're dealing with the wrong audience. even if we understood and agreed with your positions, there is nothing we can do about it, and maybe the issue is not as important as you think.

Here I agree with you 100% I am indeed dealing with the wrong audience. The problem is that the right audience does not exist. This is the fundamental of the fundamental and runs counter to everything anyone believes. Follow the proof through one line at a time (any line which says something you disagree with we can discuss, but not until you understand everything prior to that line). If you understood it, you could think about it and it could be more important than you could ever conceive. :eek:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[infamous]

I am not bothered by lack of interest; in fact, I am probably dismissive because too many people already make comments when they are actually not interested.

I agree with your take on this question DocD. I've been following this discussion for a time now and I have restrained my comments because, at the present, I'm still trying to get the full understanding necessary to effectively debate the issue with you. There are several other members soliciting this thread that are far more knowledgable than I regarding your missive. Until I get a better grasp, I'll have to defer to them to continue this discovery. I think if you'll exercise an extra degree of patience, we have members here with the required intelligence to get the message. Something tells me, just a gut feeling mind you, that there is something to what your trying to share with us. Just bear with us DocD, I have faith that it will soak in eventually............................Infy