Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

On the issue of belief!


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#52 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 790 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 01:31 PM

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. :alien_dance:


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. :partycheers: 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? :alien_dance:


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:
http://hypography.co...html#post271521
(post #48)

-Anssi

#53 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15129 posts

Posted 19 July 2009 - 04:44 PM

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.


understood. however, what i meant is that Doc has been posting here about 4 years, and i have read virtually every word, not skimmed. ergo, my where's the beef. :applause: erhm...what!? no cow emoticon!!! :alien_dance:

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 have only a casual understanding of the nuances of those subjects. nonetheless, i have read most of the discussion 'twixt you & Rick to get the flavor of the the arguments, questions, & explanations. :jumpforjoy:



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?


yes i think it has many parallels to D-Doc's work. world views, perceptions, geometry, intelligence, & symmetries up the ying-yang. :alien_dance: here is the thread: http://hypography.co...y-thinking.html

now i have recently negated my insistence at the start of that thread that we follow the work 'page-by-page", and if you like you can skim the start where i followed that; otherwise, you can skip to the end where i have a link to the online version of Synergetics & pick any topic out of the work you wish to discuss & regardless of order. among the early topics however is a bit of reference to quantum theory and as i say i don't possess the wherewithal to analyze the validity of those claims.

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?").
...
If you want to see a glimpse of what it is, I think you should read this post carefully:
http://hypography.co...html#post271521
(post #48)

-Anssi


i shortened all that as again, i am in no position to critically analyze it, although i have likely already read it.
inasmuch as both D'Doctor & D'Buckster do put many of their writings in more prosaic than technical terms, and make claims in, of, & on those prosaic terms, i do have an interest in all of it. as if. :alien_dance: :partycheers:

#54 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 790 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 02:14 PM

i have only a casual understanding of the nuances of those subjects.


Of relativity and quantum mechanics? Do you understand them enough to understand the ontological questions they raise? If not, I'd just suggest to take a look at: Amazon.com: Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality: Solving the Quantum Mysteries Tag: Author of In Search of Schrod. Cat: John Gribbin: Books http://www.amazon.com/Schrodingers-Kittens-Search-Reality-Mysteries/dp/0316328197

You can probably find it from any library. It's a tiny book and very light read, and I think it exposes the ontological/epistemological issues better than most publications I've seen.

yes i think it has many parallels to D-Doc's work. world views, perceptions, geometry, intelligence, & symmetries up the ying-yang. :hihi: here is the thread: http://hypography.co...y-thinking.html

now i have recently negated my insistence at the start of that thread that we follow the work 'page-by-page", and if you like you can skim the start where i followed that; otherwise, you can skip to the end where i have a link to the online version of Synergetics & pick any topic out of the work you wish to discuss & regardless of order. among the early topics however is a bit of reference to quantum theory and as i say i don't possess the wherewithal to analyze the validity of those claims.


I've done the first superficial skimming of Synergetics, trying to understand what it is all about. One part of it, it appears he is taking the relationships stated by physics, and re-mapping them in terms of tetrahedrons and all sorts of triangular shapes. Wikipedia mentions "Fuller also claimed that the natural analytic geometry of the universe was based on arrays of tetrahedra", and there is a page about "Synergetics coordinates", which I suppose is explaining the coordinate system he is using to map the physical relationships.

I would be the last person to claim that euclidean mapping would be somehow more correct than another. I'm sure many different mapping methods can be devised to express certain relationships in a simple manner (things that become messy in an euclidean form), as the chosen mapping method is essentially an expression of how the parameters are related to each others, i.e. how changing one parameter changes the others.

So I can certainly believe that Fuller's view can be useful in expressing some concepts or tautologies (proofs) in a simple manner. But what do you suppose it means, that he can express modern physics in this manner? Does it imply something about ontology and/or epistemology, in your mind? (From the account at Wikipedia, I get the impression that Fuller saw this as an indication that reality is somehow ontologically structured in tetrahedronal manner, or something. I would not want to comment more before I hear what you think about this)

I can't be sure if I've understood Fuller's intentions at all, but now I'm getting really worried that you may have misinterpreted DD's work similarly, as simply an attempt to re-map modern physics into different form. (That would explain why you keep wondering what's the point of it all)

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?").


I do not mean demystifying these theories in the sense of "mapping them in a simple and easily understood manner". I mean, literally explaining them, as in, where the expressed relationships actually come from.

Think about this now. Remember the starting point of the analysis? Without making any assumptions about the meaning of the raw data, we just established few arguments that have to be true for any mechanism that orders all that data. We are talking about the data-ordering mechanisms, not about the content of the data.

E.g. shift symmetry; When you take a certain pattern to mean "tennis ball", you must take that same pattern to mean "tennis ball" elsewhere in the data, given that the whole context of the situation is exactly the same. Otherwise, your view is not self-coherent.

All the symmetry arguments together will yield surprisingly narrow possibility space as to how objects can be defined in a self-coherent manner. When you see certain behaviour/pattern in the raw data, that ends up meaning "a tennis ball" only once it goes through that data-ordering mechanism (that is our worldview).

In these threads, it is shown how the expressions of modern physics are algebraically tautologous to those symmetry requirements.

In other words; DD's work is an exact proof about how modern physics are a consequence of that data ordering mechanism. I.e., it is a proof that relativistic time relationships are not "out there" in the world, they are instead completely a result of us being logically forced to define and order the data in a specific manner, before the data is even conceived in terms of "persistent objects" at all.

Likewise, it is a proof that quantum mechanical behaviour is not "out there", it is instead a consequence of us trying to see persistent objects in a raw data where there are none (so to speak). When all we have are our expectations about how certain patterns follow one another, and when the apparent perception of stable objects is actually a result of a competent data ordering mechanism. That is why new observations (new raw data to be ordered) has got such a seemingly anti-realistic effect to the reality around us (it has got that effect to our perception of reality around us)

To put it succintly, it is a proof that modern physics are actually an expression of those original symmetry arguments, which never had anything to do with reality at all.

Makes sense?

Consequentely, relativity and quantum mechanics are also explained under the same paradigm.


There are apparent violations between relativity and quantum mechanics, having much to do with how these theories are interpreted, i.e. what people suppose they mean ontologically. E.g. if you do not understand how relativistic time relationships arise from the data ordering methods, you might be prone to think that reality must be a relativistic spacetime. That does not play well with most intepretations of QM, that are likewise a result of interpreting quantum mechanical relationships in some ontological manner, as if the objects we have defined actually exist ontologically with exactly the identities we gave them.

Here, the actual source of both perspectives is explained. Of the two, QM could be said to be "more valid", in that it supposes less about reality (it is not deterministic). You could say that these results are consequential to us having to understand reality in discreet parts... :shrug:

Note btw, that Fuller is taking the view of modern physics as his starting point, so he is also taking relativity of simultaneity as a fact. Just thought I'd throw this out here to give you an idea of how Fuller's work is actually quite different topic from DD's... :I

And I'm sorry if I appear to be just dragging the conversation towards DD's work at every turn, I'm just puzzled by all the "but what's the point of that" reactions...

-Anssi

#55 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15129 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 03:15 PM

Of relativity and quantum mechanics? Do you understand them enough to understand the ontological questions they raise?

yes i think so. spooky isn't it. :rotfl:

I've done the first superficial skimming of Synergetics, trying to understand what it is all about.

:hihi:

So I can certainly believe that Fuller's view can be useful in expressing some concepts or tautologies (proofs) in a simple manner. But what do you suppose it means, that he can express modern physics in this manner? Does it imply something about ontology and/or epistemology, in your mind? (From the account at Wikipedia, I get the impression that Fuller saw this as an indication that reality is somehow ontologically structured in tetrahedronal manner, or something. I would not want to comment more before I hear what you think about this).


yes it implies ontology & epistemology. if you read just a bit, you know the writing is nothing short of tortuous. bucky comes 'round to these topics in 'round about ways that skimming is hard put to find. ontological 'things' to fuller are wave interferences. we being made of things & in a particular structural manner, limits what we can know, and time determines when we can know it.

I can't be sure if I've understood Fuller's intentions at all, but now I'm getting really worried that you may have misinterpreted DD's work similarly, as simply an attempt to re-map modern physics into different form. (That would explain why you keep wondering what's the point of it all)

i hope the above clarifies things a bit. :shrug:

And I'm sorry if I appear to be just dragging the conversation towards DD's work at every turn, I'm just puzzled by all the "but what's the point of that" reactions...

-Anssi


no worries. hope i managed to drag it back again to bucky. :) . . . . . . . .:doh:

#56 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 790 posts

Posted 23 July 2009 - 04:21 PM


Of relativity and quantum mechanics? Do you understand them enough to understand the ontological questions they raise?

yes i think so. spooky isn't it. ;)


Um.... wha... Well not anymore... :)
And, you "think so"? What does that mean? :thumbs_up
Hmmm, you are being just a little bit too cheeky with your reply; now I don't know what you know, and I really don't know what to say... :shrug:

Do you know what a bell experiment is? :hyper:

yes it implies ontology & epistemology. if you read just a bit, you know the writing is nothing short of tortuous. bucky comes 'round to these topics in 'round about ways that skimming is hard put to find. ontological 'things' to fuller are wave interferences. we being made of things & in a particular structural manner, limits what we can know, and time determines when we can know it.

i hope the above clarifies things a bit. :sherlock:


Well, no... I don't even know if you think I picked up anything right or wrong or something in between.

From your description, it sounds like Fuller's work (regarding physics) is an interpretation made about quantum mechanical relationships. So I would say "he is expressing quantum mechanical relationships in a different form from the norm". And I would say the usefulness of such work is that it potentially makes certain relationships easier to understand in one's mind. But, judging by your description, it sounds like Fuller would say his work says something about ontological reality...?

Do you think it explains what ontological reality is? Or could it be, it just says something about how we have come to understand reality? And what exactly?

no worries. hope i managed to drag it back again to bucky. :shrug: . . . . . . . .:eek_big:


I didn't move the discussion to your thread yet because I didn't really want to go exclusively to Bucky, and I'm a bit disappointed that you have not said whether you understood "where's the beef" or is it still completely lost... (That's why I replied in the first place, trying to explain what's the point of it all)

I mean, not to belittle Fuller's work at all, but it is very very different thing to express modern physics in a new form, and to actually expose the tautology between modern physics and a mapping mechanism. (of course the nice thing is that, proving tautologies is completely about immaterial logic, so those things can be exactly proven... At least in so far that math can be "proven" :I)

I'm suspecting that maybe part of the problem is that you are not aware well enough about what sorts of ontological questions arise from modern physics and why, and consequently how there is quite a bit of beef in being able to dissolve all those apparent problems... I'm sure that pretty much all the physicists understand that those problems must be "apparent problems" (just problems in our thinking one way or another), but so far no one out there has been able to solve them in a satisfactory manner (apart from choosing to believe some arbitrarily chosen interpretation... they are mythologies of our time really)

That is, no one has been able to solve them, until now. Enough beef? I mean... :eek_big:

-Anssi

#57 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15129 posts

Posted 23 July 2009 - 07:33 PM

Um.... wha... Well not anymore... :hyper:
And, you "think so"? What does that mean? :sherlock:
Hmmm, you are being just a little bit too cheeky with your reply; now I don't know what you know, and I really don't know what to say... :shrug:

Do you know what a bell experiment is? :shrug:


i just read a bit on bell; no i hadn't heard of him before. i was referring to 'spooky action at a distance'. http://en.wikipedia....stance_(physics) i thought my allusion would be obvious to someone well versed. :eek_big:



From your description, it sounds like Fuller's work (regarding physics) is an interpretation made about quantum mechanical relationships. ...


so again; you'll have to actually read fuller yourself to make that determination as, again, i do not have the acumen to fully assess the reasonableness of his claims juxtaposed to current quantum physics.


I'm suspecting that maybe part of the problem is that you are not aware well enough about what sorts of ontological questions arise from modern physics and why, and consequently how there is quite a bit of beef in being able to dissolve all those apparent problems... I'm sure that pretty much all the physicists understand that those problems must be "apparent problems" (just problems in our thinking one way or another), but so far no one out there has been able to solve them in a satisfactory manner (apart from choosing to believe some arbitrarily chosen interpretation... they are mythologies of our time really)

That is, no one has been able to solve them, until now. Enough beef? I mean... :eek_big:

-Anssi


so again. you'll have to read fuller yourself to determine if he addresses, let alone anwsers, those questions. you're welcome to post in the Synergetics thread any time you care. if you haven't read Synergetics however, you're in no position to make claims about what it does, or does not, answer. . . . . . . . . :thumbs_up

#58 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 790 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 04:26 PM

i just read a bit on bell; no i hadn't heard of him before. i was referring to 'spooky action at a distance'. http://en.wikipedia....stance_(physics) i thought my allusion would be obvious to someone well versed. :)


Wasn't really obvious because there are many features in QM that one might call "spooky", depending on the exact perspective they have chosen to think about the issue. And I don't know your perspective, so I didn't know what exactly would you think is "spooky". One man's "spooky action at a distance" is another's "spooky manyworlds", is another's "spooky backward causality", is another's "spooky idealism", is another's "spooky illusionary motion" and so on and so forth.

Just to make sure you understand "spooky action at a distance" properly; it is originally just something that Einstein said, in relation to a thought experiment (EPR-paradox), which was supposed to show that quantum mechanical idea of reality would be non-sensical. He was talking about the idea, embedded to QM, that the measurement has got an effect to the outcome. He was pointing out that this implies that entangled properties (two properties that are related to each others via having a common cause at their past) have a causal link between them at the moment of "measurement". That of course comes with a lot of issues, including how "moment of measurement" is not defineable in terms of SR, and "what counts as measurement" can't be defined etc... But ultimately, what we wanted to say was "something's amiss with QM".

Bell experiment then, is that actual experiment springing from exactly that thought experiment, and it is showing that QM predictions are valid, and classical predictions are not.

To put it bluntly, the experimental results are such which you would get if the measured properties did not yet exist at the time of entanglement, but if instead only at the moment of measurement the particles aligned themselves together, regardless of their spatial separation.

So some people still talk about "spooky action at a distance" when referring to QM, but really that issue gets quite messy with all the different QM interpretations (they all see the issue differently), and in any case "spooky action at a distance" carries a lot of unwanted and incoherent connotations with it...

What you also see a lot, are people commenting on how QM seems to show that reality just does not exist until we observe it. I'm sure you've heard those sorts of comments.

Because this "collapse of a wave function" appears to be somehow a function of us gaining more "knowledge" about the situation (us knowing the state of the other entangled particle), and because the "knowledge about reality" can propagate at any speed in our mind without violating relativity, people have certainly tried to solve this conundrum via epistemological means.

Those attempts have not been succesfull so far, because what has been missed is an explanation for how persistent entities are defined in our head, and how quantum mechanical relationships themselves are springing from those definition mechanisms, as oppose to springing from something actually happening in reality. Thus far, people have just tried to combine classical ideas of "real persistent entities" with how we see them behaving in Bell experiment. But as soon as one understand that we must first define those "persistent entities" from data patterns, and that QM predictions spring from the very mechanism that allows us to define the "photons" and "electrons" and "atoms" in the first place, you can trivially explain "spooky action at a distance" without any spookyness to reality at all.

What we have is, a particular pattern in one place, defined to mean "photon A in state X" -> that observation leading via QM relationships to very specific expectations of finding a particular pattern B elsewhere, defined in our mind to mean "photon B in state Y".

Those specific expectations are different from the expectations that you get when you believe in reality where persistent objects exist ontologically. Einstein firmly believed in that reality, without any objective merit to his belief. What we have here now is proof that those "supposedly persistent entities" are more properly immaterial references to specific data patterns.

Finally, note that there are delayed choice versions of Bell experiment, where the choice for how to measure is made only right before the particle reaches the measuring device. And the particles can be miles apart at that point. And to take that one step further, there are versions where the measurement is made, but then erased before the result is read. In all these experiments the final results are the same; we actually have to "know" in our mind (in our worldview) what the measurement was, before the "wave function collapses" (before that information has got an effect to other parts of reality).

When QM stops being a feature of reality, and starts being a feature of the model in our head, all its idealistic flavours are quite rational and expected.

so again; you'll have to actually read fuller yourself to make that determination as, again, i do not have the acumen to fully assess the reasonableness of his claims juxtaposed to current quantum physics.


I really should read more to be sure, but from what I've read, I would expect his interpretation is a valid model of QM formalism; i.e. it is equally valid with any other interpretation, as long as one does not suppose they say something about ontological reality.

so again. you'll have to read fuller yourself to determine if he addresses, let alone anwsers, those questions.


Again I should read more to be sure, but all the parts that I have read thus far, he starts with "physics has found that simultaneity is not universal" or "physics has found this and that", i.e. he starts with the relationships expressed by modern physics, and then re-maps them. It does not appear to be an attempt to uncover the ontological reality in that sense.

But then he turns around and implies that his mapping is somehow "more natural", and that certainly could be taken as an assertion that he thinks ontological reality has been somehow built the way he chooses to map it. That is the exact same argument made by almost anyone who has found some handy way to map reality, and there's never any way to prove their belief (and that applies to the mainstream views as well, such as "relativistic spacetime" or "many-worlds"). For instance, google "spherical standing waves"... Turns out you can map whole reality in terms of spherical standing waves. What does that say about reality? Upon careful analysis, absolutely nothing. It just says something about how elements can be defined in self-coherent manner.

you're welcome to post in the Synergetics thread any time you care. if you haven't read Synergetics however, you're in no position to make claims about what it does, or does not, answer. . . . . . . . . :turtle:


I may participate in that actual thread if I somehow have the time to read more at some point (so don't hold your breath just yet :), but I would have been also quite interested to hear if my explanation about "the beef" explained anything to you... Because I'm really a bit surprised at the lack of reaction from people in general, and I was hoping your comments might at least reveal what's amiss here... :/

I understand you have said many times you don't feel like you are at a position to argue about its logical validity, but like you asked yourself, what if indeed is valid, then what? Well, if it is valid, would you agree it would be quite relevant piece of "understanding"?

-Anssi

#59 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15129 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 09:11 PM

...
I may participate in that actual thread if I somehow have the time to read more at some point (so don't hold your breath just yet :whew:, but I would have been also quite interested to hear if my explanation about "the beef" explained anything to you... Because I'm really a bit surprised at the lack of reaction from people in general, and I was hoping your comments might at least reveal what's amiss here... :/

I understand you have said many times you don't feel like you are at a position to argue about its logical validity, but like you asked yourself, what if indeed is valid, then what? Well, if it is valid, would you agree it would be quite relevant piece of "understanding"?

-Anssi


thanks for that expose. :lol: i read it all and only removed the bulk to conserve space.

believe me, i gave up holding breath for anyone showing up to discuss the Buckster's work years ago. :eek2: you're welcome anytime, but don't hurry on my account. my 'where's the beef' comment is taking advantage of joking about an old tv commercial that used that phrase. a more accurate phrase might be, "what's taking that steak so darn long!??" this is to say, i don't have any reason to doubt there is a steak -since it was on the menu- so much as i can't for life of me figure out what is taking so long to prepare it. thanks again for your time. . . . . . . . . B)

#60 AnssiH

AnssiH

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 790 posts

Posted 02 August 2009 - 05:22 AM

my 'where's the beef' comment is taking advantage of joking about an old tv commercial that used that phrase. a more accurate phrase might be, "what's taking that steak so darn long!??" this is to say, i don't have any reason to doubt there is a steak -since it was on the menu- so much as i can't for life of me figure out what is taking so long to prepare it.


If by "preparing the meat" you mean "gaining recognition in scientific community", then I must say it seems like the history repeats itself; not exactly the first time it is taking an awful long time for the meat to cook. Why that keeps happening is certainly a topic of its own (investigated by Kuhn for instance).

It is quite interesting that occasionally you do hear a comment from a scientist, implying that they expect that an epistemological explanation to the mysteries of physics is possible.

I've seen comments on science articles, saying something to the effect of "I don't think it is possible to create a theory of everything without taking into account the philosophy of the mind, and how do we understand reality in our head".

Also I remember Gribbin commenting in his book, that scientists have wondered "why is it, that math can be used to describe reality; why should we be so fortunate as to find reality to obey such simple mathematical definitions, out of all the possibilities?". He did go on to comment that upon closer analysis, there is nothing magical with math itself, it is just that physicists are very fluent with math as a language; if they were more fluent with different representation form, they would find a way to describe reality via that language instead. Probably implying very different sort of reality.

That implies that he does understand at least to some extent, that the entities we define, is a function of the conceptual tools we use to describe them. I.e. the entities we refer to are in no way ontologically real things.

Once someone understands that bit, they should be able to understand what does the existence of a logical deduction from self-coherence requirements to modern physics actually say about the picture of reality, that we have in our head.

So, it does seem there are people there who are thinking about the questions posed by modern physics, and expect to find the answer from epistemological considerations. And unbeknownst to them, that answer already exists... :rainumbrella:

And yes I think this would warrant an article in a science publication. But, if the editor of a given publication does not understand the work themselves, I don't think they'd be ready to put their career on the line by publishing it... :I That's a bit of a problem.

-Anssi

#61 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1071 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 10:33 PM

Hi Anssi, I am led to make but one comment on your post.

... if they were more fluent with different representation form, they would find a way to describe reality via that language instead.

Mathematics is a language concerned with internal consistency. I assure you that, if you came up with a way to express something in a totally self consistent form which was not totally obvious from the first step (i.e., required a little thought and examination) and didn't map directly into some known mathematics, that mechanism of expression would be accepted by the mathematical community as a new branch of mathematics. What I am saying is that the alternative you refer to does not really exist.

And yes I think this would warrant an article in a science publication. But, if the editor of a given publication does not understand the work themselves, I don't think they'd be ready to put their career on the line by publishing it... :I That's a bit of a problem.

It is even worse than that. Back in 1985 after trying to get this stuff published in a standard professional journal (with no success) I went to the fellow who had been my Ph.D. thesis advisor to ask for a little help in getting it published and his reaction quite astounded me. He said that no one would ever read my stuff because “I had not paid my dues!”. On top of that, he himself refused to even look at it! It turned out he was quite right. As he told me when I was a graduate student, “physicists are not interested in truth, it's just a social club with rules and you have to be in the club if you want to be published.”

Life is a joke; have fun -- Dick

PS

One part of it, it appears he is taking the relationships stated by physics, and re-mapping them in terms of tetrahedrons and all sorts of triangular shapes.

Tetrahedrons you say. You should take a look at post #15 in the following thread.

I am of the opinion that the following proof is of great significance when one goes to consider "emergent" phenomena and the complexity achievable from simple constructs. The proof concerns a careful examination of the projection of a trivial geometric structure on a one dimensional line element.

I have edited that opening post as it seems to have lost some equations which were originally posted. I had to replace "latex" with "math".

Edited by Doctordick, 24 March 2012 - 06:18 AM.


#62 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15129 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 12:18 AM

Life is a joke; have fun -- Dick


One part of it, it appears he is taking the relationships stated by physics, and re-mapping them in terms of tetrahedrons and all sorts of triangular shapes.

PS
Tetrahedrons you say. You should take a look at post #15 in the following thread.

I am of the opinion that the following proof is of great significance when one goes to consider "emergent" phenomena and the complexity achievable from simple constructs. The proof concerns a careful examination of the projection of a trivial geometric structure on a one dimensional line element.


just to clarify, the passage you quote from ansii was addressed to me and the he that anshii is referring to is Fuller & by extension his Synergetics. i brought this up with you in the thread you mention ( A Simple Geometric Proof... ) and you read no more of Synergetics back then than a couple diagrams i referenced and then you concluded:

Fuller is apparently interested in specific rotations yielding symmetries.


i submit, as i did for ansii, that unless you read Synergetics as studiously as you wish we dear readers read you, then you are in no position to judge whether or not, or how, it may or may not address the elements you have been posting on lo these many years. having read both you & he, lo these many years, then i further submit i have a perspective you do not.

having a hoot; thanks. :)

#63 Doctordick

Doctordick

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 1071 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 01:26 AM

Hi Turtle,

 

I was reading over some of my old threads and ran across this one and your comments about someone called "Fuller".  Apparently I missed the issue when you brought it up and I apologize. I tried to find him on the internet and failed.  Do you have a reference I might look at?

 

Thanks -- Dick