I have not confidence that I “get” what Doctordick is trying so hard to convey, so I may be completely off track here.
Quite simply, what would the universe look like if everything were absolutely random: utterly no rules at all? Suppose that the simple constraint that any acceptable story which provides an explanation of whatever phenomena one wishes to understand
must be internally self consistent is absolutely sufficient to constrain the universe to exactly what we appear to see.
Conventional wisdom is, "that can not possibly be" and the issue is simply never logically examined in a careful manner. I have examined such a hypothesis and discovered that it is true. How in hell did you think I managed to obtain my eminent quack status? What I know is as easy to explain to you guys as explaining probability to ancient Egyptians astrologers (hell, that's difficult to explain to modern astrologers).
What I have discovered is essentially a Dewy decimal system of organizing information in a manner such that the defined entities (significant aspects of that information) are guaranteed to amount to an internally consistent construct. The system is so constructed as to be applicable to absolutely any collection of information. Is it a theory? Would you present the Dewy decimal system as a theory? It is either an erroneous construct or the consequences implied by the construct are absolutely correct.
Dr. Dick, since i am at probably a contemporary to you in age, if not your senior, i feel compelled to comment on a peculiar personality quirk evident in your writings.
1.you are very patronizing, if not insulting, to the posters at large.
Yes, I suppose I am; however, I have seen little to convince me I am dealing with equals.
2. your subject may not be of much interest to the posters.
The forum provides a very simple solution to that problem: anyone who is not interested has the ability to place me on their personal "ignore" list (quite a popular list by the way). Actually, I wouldn't mind such a move at all. As they say, ignorance is bliss, enjoy yourselves!
3. since you have not fully explained your subject as an entity, we are left to try to understand the snippets as they are presented.
Yes, that is very true. That is exactly what I have been searching for: someone who is capable of understanding those "snippets". If they cannot understand those how can I expect them to understand a deduction from them.
4. the level of intellect here is probably well above the norm, but we are not all equipped with the experience or specialized knowledge to deal with a subject that has occupied your mind for some time.
Again, if you are not interested , you have the option to ignore me. If you are interested, nothing I am saying requires any really deep comprehension; just the simple ability to think about things a little.
5. perhaps you would have more interest and a better audience if you would just state your premise, lay off the insults, and see if you can have a discussion.
I'm not looking for an audience; I am looking for a few good men willing to think about things a little.
6. i have a suspicion your theory may not rival E=MC2
That's nice! It's good to know the rational behind your reactions.
7. i am only speaking for myself, and would hope we could have the benefit of your wisdom.
Wisdom?? Just simple logic and nothing more.
Please, if you would be so kind, point out what snippet you found "difficult to understand" in my previous post (msg #19 on page #2 of this thread)
Have fun -- Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."