The only reason I assign numbers to the relevant concepts is to allow me to refer to them without assigning any meaning to them whatsoever. The object is to maintain complete ignorance and at the same consider the possible logical consequences of a finite set of beliefs.

This is where I lose you. I understand that you can say that A implies B without ever specifying what either A or B is (or means). But that is completely hollow and tells you nothing. It has no meaning or relationship to anything until you specify what A and B mean.

It strikes me as self-contradictory that you can (1) maintain complete ignorance and yet still meaningfully assess (2) "the possible logical consequences" of anything significant. The claim that "If A, then B; A therefore B" is analytically "true" but that is a purely a matter of form, not substance.

I have a strong suspicion that what I am thinking is beyond your comprehension....

Suppose I point to an animal and say "That cat is black." If my statement is to be assessed as either true or false, this presumes, among other things, that there are such things as cats, that I know how to identify a cat, that I can distinguish black from green or any other color, etc.

If I substitute the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the 4 words above, its true that I am now "completely ignorant" of any meaning, actual or intended. So what do I know now? Nothing, that's what.

I mean, can you give any example? Can you explain any concepts, without hauling out a bunch of numbers, Doc?

Let me try an example:

First, if A, then B; if B, then C; if C, then D. A, therefore D.

What's that tell you?

Let's give it some context. My claim is:

A: If you live in San Francisco, CA, then you live in the U.S.A.

B: The U.S.A. is a totalitarian fascist police state.

C. In such a country, you are likely to be killed by some wack-*** cop on any given day.

D. The odds of you being killed by a cop in a given year are 99%

You live in San Francisco, therefore, you're a walking dead man, boy.

Given the premises, the conclusion is true. So what? How do you reduce the meaning of that to numbers? How do you assign the "probability of it being true" that you mentioned any specific number? All without making any assumptions and/or having any knowledge of what's being said?

This is where I lose you. I understand that you can say that A implies B without ever specifying what either A or B is (or means). But that is completely hollow and tells you nothing. It has no meaning or relationship to anything until you specify what A and B mean.

It strikes me as self-contradictory that you can (1) maintain complete ignorance and yet still meaningfully assess (2) "the possible logical consequences" of anything significant. The claim that "If A, then B; A therefore B" is analytically "true" but that is a purely a matter of form, not substance.

I share your suspicions in this respect.

He has a chaotic set (x1,x2,...,xj,...xn); where the variables are filled in randomly.

He has proposed an ordered set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a); where the variables are filled in according to logical extrapolation (I assigned that achievement being made by some quantum computing/matrioshka brain networking multi-galactic Type III Civilization in a microverse (recursive fractals) experiencing more radical variations in their perceptions of time than a type III civilization with our perception of time (scale relativity) would)

What is left to do, is to find the probability, that is, the 1 in (n) chance that (x1,x2,...,xj,...xn) = (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a)

f(n) = basically the maximum dynamical range of reality's form, like how many forms matter can take.

In my thread, creating a universe by compacting light, with space, time, matter, and energy all existing as one continuum; with a reverse counterpart, there is a way to extrapolate that dynamical range. & with a quantum computer, perhaps f(n) can give you the answer to anything you could ever possibly inquire by eventually actualizing that probability in it's computations. In the process of doing so you will have constructed every possible & impossible virtual reality there could ever be. Only the possible ones are included in the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a)

I proposed this as a necessary method for quantum controlled, superluminal entangled state particle-based information panspermia. You'd need to know how ESP will alter the evolution of alien lifeforms and civilizations in other galaxies, the only way to know is to have every possible variation considered using all possible virtual renditions of reality.

Entertaining video. I'm the old man in that. I guess that makes you and Doc the young guy.

I proposed this as a necessary method for quantum controlled, superluminal entangled state particle-based information panspermia. You'd need to know how ESP will alter the evolution of alien lifeforms and civilizations in other galaxies

Particle-based information panspermia? ESP? Evolution? "Superluminal entangled state?" Those are some hi-falutin phrases, sho nuff, but they're clean over my stupid head. I can perhap, in a vague way, understand the words, but that doesn't explain the underlying concepts. If you already know what all that means, then you have certainly incorporated a great number of "assumptions" about meaning beforehand. That can't just "emerge" from the words themselves in any way that I am capable of imagining, anyway.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas

Chaos theory may or may not be correct, but, like any other theory, it can never be proven to be correct.

But that's not the point I care about, it's this: Last I heard a theory, any theory, necessarily involve assumptions, which I thought Doc said he could avoid.

As far as chaos theory goes, here's just a few assumptions:

Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic systems are predictable for a while and then 'appear' to become random.[3] The amount of time that the behavior of a chaotic system can be effectively predicted depends on three things: How much uncertainty can be tolerated in the forecast, how accurately its current state can be measured, and a time scale depending on the dynamics of the system, called the Lyapunov time

You must first assume that you are dealing with a "deterministic system," for example. Then you assume that three things are crucial, etc.

Entertaining video. I'm the old man in that. I guess that makes you and Doc the young guy.

Particle-based information panspermia? ESP? Evolution? "Superluminal entangled state?" Those are some hi-falutin phrases, sho nuff, but they're clean over my stupid head. I can perhap, in a vague way, understand the words, but that doesn't explain the underlying concepts.

The inverse of a particles spin, that is, it's anti-particle, are synchronized at a rate that has to be at least 4 orders of magnitude or ten thousane faster than the speed of light if not instantaneous as the standard quantum interpretation assumes. My interpretation calculated entanglement to occur non-instantaneously, the calculation was 46,777 times faster than speed of light assuming particles are entangled by micro gravitational waves: Relativistic anti particles will produce superluminal gravitational waves in the photon aether opposite to the direction they're going, positive charge relativistic particles will produce superluminal gravitational waves in the photon aether congruent to the direction they're moving. That's the addition of velocities in a displacement esque domino effect with the relativistic particle & the photons phasing it, which alone does not account for 4 orders of magnitude faster than light. Time dilation means the speed of light is faster relative to the increased mass of relativistic particles as all mass begins in the photon aether in my interpretation, any increased density will compress time, in order for c to remain constant when time is longer the speed of light has to increase, that combined with the addition of velocities did add up to over 46,000 times faster than light.

Entanglement under that notion can send information about something as well as effect, via gravity - albeit on an infinitesimal scale, matter and energy. Information systems can alter the chemistry in, say, organic molecules - the information can be sent & impacted with the organic molecules on a world a thousand galaxies away and arrange them into nucleotide sequences causing abiogenesis starting a chain reaction that can lead to an extension of your Type III civilization (information panspermia) given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a).

Chaos theory may or may not be correct, but, like any other theory, it can never be proven to be correct.

But that's not the point I care about, it's this: Last I heard a theory, any theory, necessarily involve assumptions, which I thought Doc said he could avoid.

As far as chaos theory goes, here's just a few assumptions:

You must first assume that you are dealing with a "deterministic system," for example. Then you assume that three things are crucial, etc.

(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn), does not assume anything. It is a random text generator. Eventually though, given enough processing power, it matches with (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a), which is based off of the real universe, or all possible variables.

(x1,x2,...,xj,...xn), does not assume anything. It is a random text generator. Eventually though, given enough processing power, it matches with (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a), which is based off of the real universe, or all possible variables.

Yeah, so? As they say, billions of monkeys hitting keys on billions of typewriters for many billions years will eventually re-write Tolstoy's "War and Peace," verbatim, from start to finish. In theory, at least. But what would that tell you about the meaning of War and Peace?

Entanglement under that notion can send information about something as well as effect, via gravity - albeit on an infinitesimal scale, matter and energy. Information systems can alter the chemistry in, say, organic molecules - the information can be sent & impacted with the organic molecules on a world a thousand galaxies away and arrange them into nucleotide sequences causing abiogenesis starting a chain reaction that can lead to an extension of your Type III civilization (information panspermia) given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a).

All this raises many more questions than I care to ask, but let me ask this: You say: "Entanglement under that notion can....given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a)."

Does "accounting for all the variables" make all this possible? "Cause" it, you might say? Would all of that still be possible even if you didn't "already account for all the variables?" What does "accounting for the variables" add to the process? Does it allow you to formulate your theory? Does it tell you what a valid theory is? Does it eliminate all assumptions from your theory? What?

You guys simply cannot comprehend the actual problem your intellect is faced with solving. Every attack you bring up involves presuming you understand the information available to you. Consider an attack which presumes no beliefs whatsoever.

Yeah, I fully comprehend that starting from that position is totally incomprehensible to you. You all want to start with some set of beliefs you feel are valid.

Suppose, for the sake of interest, a description of every publication which has ever existed (and every experience you have ever had) is available to you to examine; however the meaning of the expressions used to represent those experiences you have available to study is totally unavailable! Exactly how would you attack that problem?

Yeah, I know; you haven't the slightest idea as to how to attack such a problem. What you need to comprehend is the fact that this is exactly the problem faced by every fetus upon their existence.

Think about that a little -- Dick

The ignorance of humanity is utterly beyond belief!

Suppose, for the sake of interest, a description of every publication which has ever existed (and every experience you have ever had) is available to you to examine; however the meaning of the expressions used to represent those experiences you have available to study is totally unavailable! Exactly how would you attack that problem?

Thousand of pages have been written about the methods, mathematical and otherwise, used by the Allies to decipher the complexly-encoded "secret" messages used by the Germans during WWII generated by using the notorious Enigma machine. The consensus seems to be that the code would never have been broken without the use of assumptions involving human habits displayed by the (German) operators of that encryption system. It certainly helps to "understand" ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs if you have discovered a rosetta stone as a starting basis.

You seem to talking about something similar to mathematical cryptanalysis methods used to "break a code." All of that is very interesting (to some), no doubt.

But you have totally ignored the fundamental questions involved, such as:

All this raises many more questions than I care to ask, but let me ask this: You say: "Entanglement under that notion can....given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a)."

Does "accounting for all the variables" make all this possible? "Cause" it, you might say? Would all of that still be possible even if you didn't "already account for all the variables?" What does "accounting for the variables" add to the process? Does it allow you to formulate your theory? Does it tell you what a valid theory is? Does it eliminate all assumptions from your theory? What?

You say:

What you need to comprehend is the fact that this is exactly the problem faced by every fetus upon their existence

.

I got the impression that you were talking about something more substantial than something like code-breaking to understand the meaning of an unknown language. Something that would lead you to an understanding of "truth" or something like that. Maybe you weren't. Perhaps you are the only one who knows what you're talking about, i.e., what problem you think you have solved.

Thousand of pages have been written about the methods, mathematical and otherwise, used by the Allies to decipher the complexly-encoded "secret" messages used by the Germans during WWII generated by using the notorious Enigma machine. The consensus seems to be that the code would never have been broken without the use of assumptions involving human habits displayed...

For a guy who's so wrapped up in insisting that all the assumptions about Special Relativity are wrong, it's pretty amazing that you have no clue as to the fact that what Dick is talking about here (and has discussed in detail in several dozen other threads in this forum), is precisely about disempowering assumptions, thus giving you the methodology to question the most persistent ones (an issue that Dick isn't concerned with, and I don't blame him: it's the theory itself that's interesting).

If you'd bother to listen--and drop your assumptions--you might learn something from his work, and find it useful in your own crusade.

Yeah, so? As they say, billions of monkeys hitting keys on billions of typewriters for many billions years will eventually re-write Tolstoy's "War and Peace," verbatim, from start to finish. In theory, at least. But what would that tell you about the meaning of War and Peace?

Everything Tolstoy said. When you don't put any definition or anything behind information, it can be in the most efficient form possible, increasing the number of FLOPS, which when coupled with only the possible combinations in your ordered matrix from my interpretation for example (if it's proven & I've someone working on that who will take all the credit in that event) will allow the randomness in your chaotic set to take on order eventually until only the possible realities are left that haven't been ruled out. This may be done over a computronium platform such as a collective hivemind of matrioshka brains which utilize quantum computing. In my interpretation of quantum entangled states.

All this raises many more questions than I care to ask, but let me ask this: You say: "Entanglement under that notion can....given you have already accounted for all the variables, which are contained within the set (x1+a,x2+a,...,x+a,...xn+a)."

Does "accounting for all the variables" make all this possible? "Cause" it, you might say? Would all of that still be possible even if you didn't "already account for all the variables?" What does "accounting for the variables" add to the process? Does it allow you to formulate your theory? Does it tell you what a valid theory is? Does it eliminate all assumptions from your theory? What?

The redirection of kugelblitz energy (ALL dyson swarms are necessarily computronium [matrioshka brains] that channel solar radiation into singularities to gain the maximum amount of energy for the minimum cost) is based on the outcome of extrapolation regarding your desired potentialities from the ordered set matrix.

Edited by Super Polymath, 10 June 2018 - 10:13 AM.

it's pretty amazing that you have no clue as to the fact that what Dick is talking about here (and has discussed in detail in several dozen other threads in this forum), is precisely about disempowering assumptions, thus giving you the methodology to question the most persistent ones (an issue that Dick isn't concerned with, and I don't blame him: it's the theory itself that's interesting).

I haven't read the "dozens of other threads," but I did get the impression (in some vague way) that he believes he can eliminate assumptions and still come to meaningful conclusions.

How can you do that? For me it doesn't take complex math to understand that 1 + 1 = 2. It seems to me that, just as simple, you can't form any logical (or illogical, for that matter) conclusions without first having premises (assumptions). 1 + 1 = 2 has no significance whatsoever until you have some idea of the concepts underlying the expression--even if you have to "guess" at what they are.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that a perpetual motion machine would be nice to discover, as would a bootstrapping machine. But that doesn't mean I'm going to wishfully think there must be one, eh?

For a guy who's so wrapped up in insisting that all the assumptions about Special Relativity are wrong, it's pretty amazing...

What's amazing to me is the number of people who seem to believe that there are no "assumptions" involved in SR. Just "facts," ya know?

The convenient thing about that is that, when you are convinced you are making no assumptions, then there's no assumptions that you need to analyze or scrutinize. Pretty simple, actually.

Dick kinda makes it sound like, if only you could put every sentence, whatever the language, ever written in the entire history of mankind into one big computational machine, you would emerge with "truth." Well, if you assigned numbers and probabilities to each atomistic symbol, anyway. You wouldn't have to assume anything, just be a good scrivener, that's all. The machine would figure it all out.

Maybe that's not what he means. I really don't know.