that's all well and good, but 4 or 5 years to 'first' understand the work?
It really is not as complicated as it might seem from skimming all those threads. My math knowledge was next to non-existent (well still is) and I had to very carefully think through each step, and learn the necessary mathematical concepts to get through any tiny step, and I only spent perhaps one evening per week on it. Even then it didn't take 4 to 5 years.
Someone who already knows physics and math well enough, could probably verify the validity from the symmetry arguments to fundamental equation to quantum physics to relativity in one evening. Maybe over one weekend max. That is, if they weren't spending all their time trying to first understand how the initial definitions correlate to their current worldview. (They'd understand after walking it through to relativity)
I'm really thinking that these forums are just not the best place in communicating something like this, people just don't have the attention span... :I Hmmm...
Ricky has at least half-a dozen threads just here at Hypog, and all related to some nuanced aspect of his whatever he is calling whatever it is he is writing about. that you find some interest in it is all well & good with me, but that doesn't make all this more than Fundamental intellectual onanism. not that there is anything wrong with that.
Well, DD stated "Belief serves no purpose beyond presenting a prediction beyond what is actually expected.", and I said "to understand that properly, you'd need to first understand DD's work". But I don't mean that as "to understand his philosophy you would have to understand his work.". I mean, "to understand why and how he is exactly correct on that assertion, you would have to understand his work".
I do see people operating on beliefs a lot when they wouldn't really have to, even people who keep boasting about how "scientific" and "anti-belief" their worldview is. For instance, any ontological interpretation on top of relativistic time relationships is a belief, including the idea of relativistic spacetime. Even when people "sort of" recognize this, they keep making assertions that rely on the ontological existence of relativistic spacetime. Just as an example, "non-locality violates relativity" is a prediction that does not exist in the underlying logical roots behind relativity, but it does exist in the idea that reality is a relativistic spacetime. Oops. (And this much should be obvious even without DD's work)
There are also those who understand the difference between ontology and epistemology, and try not to assign any ontology to the exposed relationships between things (this mostly comes from the realization that each ontology, under a careful analysis, gives you a very elusive idea of reality in one sense or another). Even then, most of them would probably say that our worldview must always contain some amount of belief, as without any ontological assumptions we could not make any sense of reality at all. I.e. that it would all just be senseless noise without any correlation between any things.
But, if you understand DD's work, you can understand that that's not true. That's why I said "to understand that properly, you'd have to understand DD's work". I don't think DD said it with the expectation that anyone would actually pick up on the ultimate conclusion just from that comment... :I
as to talking about other stuff, why not come over & discuss Fuller's Synergetics? you seem to have the wherewithal to mix it up with such high thinking. if you don't know Synergetics, and i ask you to compare it to Ricky's stuff (as i have doc in the past only to receive summary dismissal), what can/will you say?
I don't know Synergetics, but if I have time, perhaps I can try and understand it. I would not want to make comments without first understanding it. Is there some sort of handy starting point? I hope this doesn't mean I'd have to read that hefty book at the get-go? :I
Since you mention "compare it to Ricky's stuff", what do you mean by that, do you see some parallels?
don't pay too much attention to me. i challenged the good doctor from the start, & i see fit to periodically post up another challenge such as i am now. i say again; where's the beef? so what if he's right? what then? if nothing, then say so & i'll leave off.
Demystifying relativity and quantum mechanics, and I mean literally explaining the elusive facets of both theories (when it comes to the questions "what does their validity imply about reality?"). Consequentely, relativity and quantum mechanics are also explained under the same paradigm. If this was a theory, it could be called the unifying theory between relativity and QM. But it's not a theory in the sense that it doesn't tell you anything about reality. It just tells you exactly why do you comprehend reality in your mind as relativistic and as one that obeys quantum mechanical laws. (And if you understand it, you can understand that it's a bit pointless to look for an ontology that unifies the two views)
That's what it is in the context of physics (it is more in the context of explaining "intelligence"), and I think that's quite a bit more than "nothing". The reason why DD doesn't immediately state this result is that it would be WAY too easy to dismiss it as yet another "crazy theory" that just explains everyhing as if by magic, without ever taking the trouble to understand at it.
Well, I took the trouble to understand it, without DD ever telling me what I would find at the end, and after actually understanding the algebraic steps, and thinking about what their validity means, I came to that conclusion by myself (i.e. this is not something DD just told me it means and that I just took at face value).
Also, I would say it is quite a bit more rational explanation for "the validity of QM and relativity" than any ontological interpretation I've ever come across. (not to mention, that the ontological interpretations are not something you can prove. This work is)
If you want to see a glimpse of what it is, I think you should read this post carefully: