The nature of a "Final Theory"!

[Qfwfq]

A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water).

To the purpose of illustrating your point, I find this example itself flawed Dick, because it is really more a matter of what is meant by the term 'downhill'. It can even be confounded by very simply considering a piece of lead in lieu of the air bubble. Is the lead not also a lack of water? Using this rather odd "carpenters level", and then actually continuing the experiment, which of the following two conclusions should one draw?

 

A: Water does not run downhill but the opposite way.

 

B: This rather odd level indicates the opposite of downhill.

 

Whichever you choose, it stands that the experiment is showing that water runs the opposite of the way that the level shows that it runs.

[Doctordick]

To the purpose of illustrating your point, I find this example itself flawed Dick, because it is really more a matter of what is meant by the term 'downhill'.

I have the distinct feeling you misunderstood the essence of the example. The central assumption of the example was, "if one used a carpenter's level to determine downhill" then the definition of downhill is explicitly "downhill is the direction water runs". I chose that as the example because the abstract distance between the definition and the experiment was so short that no one could possibly miss it. The central issue being discussed is that the consequences of your definitions must be closely examined. It is very definitely "a matter of what is meant by the term 'downhill'": i.e., the definition of downhill.

 

The very issue of my post was that the question "does water run downhill?" is very dependent upon the definition of downhill. If you want to propose this odd "carpenters level" (certainly not one I have seen a carpenter use), then you would most probably define downhill to be the direction the lead goes (I am presuming this level has a glass tube with a lead ball in water with no bubble). You have then added a more complex variable into the situation and you must first answer the question, does unconstrained water go in the same direction as unconstrained lead? Now that depends on a lot of other issues. Suppose there is an oscillating magnetic field nearby; certainly you would expect the lead ball to be more strongly repelled than the water. Your alternate example has simply increased the abstract distance between the definition of downhill and the proposed experiment and, by doing so, simply confused the issue I was presenting.

 

Some how I think you missed the whole point of the paragraph.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[InfiniteNow]

Some how I think you missed the whole point of the paragraph.

Have you noticed that many of your posts suffer from this issue? At what point is the issue specific to the reader and at what point is the issue specific to the author?

[Doctordick]

Have you noticed that many of your posts suffer from this issue? At what point is the issue specific to the reader and at what point is the issue specific to the author?

Oh, I won't argue with you there. I apparently have great trouble making myself clear. I suppose it comes from seventy years of presuming it was my job to make sense of what others said: i.e., anytime I couldn't understand what they were saying, I always assumed it was my fault and not theirs. Since I never felt pressed to give my opinions (after all, opinions are pretty worthless things aren't they), I guess I never learned how to express myself in ways others could easily understand. And it's difficult to teach old dogs new tricks. :)

 

I have always taken it as my job to understand reality; now that I think I do understand it, I guess I will take it to my grave. Life is tough that way. :)

 

Sorry about that -- Dick

[InfiniteNow]

I have always taken it as my job to understand reality; now that I think I do understand it, I guess I will take it to my grave

Does reality not also include the understanding of others?

 

Anyway, this is off topic from the thread and I apologize for that. I just felt it warranted mention.

[Turtle]

Does reality not also include the understanding of others?

 

Anyway, this is off topic from the thread and I apologize for that. I just felt it warranted mention.

 

:) :) Do you see the irony in these two ordered statements? It is not simply not off-topic, it IS the topic.

 

Now a point in fact is I have followed Doc's writing here for near a year, as well as posed questions for clarification. He does not contest that he is responsible for some misunderstandings and he asserts the reader is responsible for some misunderstandings. Such is the nature of dialogue, which is the hallmark of a forum.

Now, several times I interjected material from Buckminster Fuller's work titled Synergetics which I read when the 2 volume set originally came out and more recently in the past year here have studied in an online version. He is writing about similar topics as Doc, but faces the problem of carrying on a dialogue inasmuch as he is still dead.

This is all in my humble opinion a fruitful dialogue, much as a group of folks gathered in convivial discussion leave the gathering with thoughts other than their own.

I guess I'm having what they call fun.:)

[ughaibu]

Doctordick: If I've caught your drift, your claim is that all of physics can be derived as (approximate) tautologies from your equation. If this interpretation is correct, could you list the results so far confirmed, please.

[Spiked Blood]

A "final Theory" distinctively lacks nature. Nature does not lack a final theory.

Understanding the action of a thing does not remotely correlate to why it acts that way.

 

 

Cows can Moo. Moo's can't cow. lol.

[Qfwfq]

I have the distinct feeling you misunderstood the essence of my criticism.

The central issue being discussed is that the consequences of your definitions must be closely examined.

I certainly meant that, when I put it as being "a matter of what is meant by the term 'downhill'" and I was pointing out that

The central assumption of the example was, "if one used a carpenter's level to determine downhill" then the definition of downhill is explicitly "downhill is the direction water runs".

indeed leads to a potentially misleading definition, according to which one could even prove that water runs uphill or "the way opposite to that which water runs".

 

Your alternate example has simply increased the abstract distance between the definition of downhill and the proposed experiment and, by doing so, simply confused the issue I was presenting.

Did I not say that your example is confounded by it? Except that it was a very simple trick and my conclusions are quite different. The meaning of 'downhill' is defined according to the local gravitational field. It's obvious that it would be pointless to use what one is trying to prove runs downhill to determine which way downhill is, it's also obvious that a physicist must watch out for such pitfalls which may be more hidden, this isn't an unexpected discovery. As soon as you have repeated that the meaning of downhill must be examined, the subsequent arguments get you nowhere.

 

Now let's examine my definition. The first question to pose is: How do we reveal the local gravitational field? The most direct answer is: The way that an unconstrained object falls. Next question, what does unconstrained mean? Does it not mean subject to no force? Or do we make that, by necessity, no other force (except the one we are trying to reveal)? Lack of specification of which object assumes also that, under said condition, the answer to your question about unconstrained water and unconstrained lead must be "Yes". At this point, using my definition, just how much sense does it make to "prove" that water, lead, or any other material thing "goes downhill"?

 

I really don't think that every experiment performed by physicists has had the aim of proving that an elephant is an elephant.

[Doctordick]

Doctordick: If I've caught your drift, your claim is that all of physics can be derived as (approximate) tautologies from your equation. If this interpretation is correct, could you list the results so far confirmed, please.

I have already posted the derivation of Schrodinger's equation and thus (if you understand how to generate classical mechanics from Schrodinger's equation) all of classical mechanics. I have just posted a deduction that special relativity follows explicitly from my general representation and, if I am not blocked from continuing, I will show that Dirac's equation is a relativistically correct approximation to a one body solution interacting with a massless field satisfying my equation and that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to the solutions to my equation with regard to that same massless field.

 

In addition, the same attack I use to recover Maxwell's equations can be used to yield approximate solutions for a massive field. Extension of my results to approximations for the more exact many body solutions to my equation essentially follows the perturbation attack used in quantum electrodynamics, yielding essentially the same description of massless fields; however, my results can be applied equally well as a description of massive fields.

 

And, finally, deduction of the required proper "general relativistic" transformations between generally moving frames of reference is much more straight forward than is Einstein's general relativity. My results are only slightly different from his and may or may not be within the realm of experimental verification. The difference amounts to a very small radial term and the physical determination of radial measure near a high gravitational field is a difficult issue to establish.

I really don't think that every experiment performed by physicists has had the aim of proving that an elephant is an elephant.

No, they certainly don't have the aim of "proving that an elephant is an elephant" but I am afraid that it is a rather apt description of what they are actually doing. If you were to read my posts carefully, you would understand that I start with an analytic truth (my definition of an explanation) and carefully add new definitions as I proceed (amounting to more analytic truths).

 

Using this attack, I find that my definitions of a universal representation of "undefined elements" lead to further analytic definitions ("positions", "time, "momentum", "mass" and "energy") result in exactly the results the scientific community calls "laws of physics". I have shown that any proposed algorithm capable of answering meaningful questions about reality within my entirely general model must obey a rather simple equation. I have further shown that my model corresponds to the common picture of reality in sufficient detail to map ordinary anthropomorphic experience directly into my model: i.e., classical mechanics.

 

In effect, I have shown that all conceivable universes may be seen as a three dimensional space occupied by objects which are required by definition to obey classical mechanics in the classical limit. What I have shown can be taken in two different ways. One can see the result as demonstrating that our classical view of the universe (a three dimensional space occupied by objects which obey classical mechanics) is entirely general and capable of representing any conceivable universe or one can view my results as demonstrating that the fact that classical mechanics is true by definition and that no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe except perhaps that our definitions are self consistent.

 

Even if you do not believe my model represents anthropomorphic reality, I have still shown that it is possible that classical mechanics is true by definition as my definitions have led to that result. If you consider your definitions to be sufficiently different from mine that they do not predefine the results of your experiments, I suggest that you need to prove your case.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ughaibu]

Doctordick: Thanks. I know pretty much nothing about maths or physics, so I haven't payed much attention to the aspects of your posts directly related to those fields, I take it you have an impressive result.

Above you wrote, "my results are only slightly different from his and may or may not be within the realm of experimental verification", and you have on other occasions mentioned the approximate nature of the correspondence between accepted results and those derived by MFE ("my fundamental equation"). What's your present view on the fact and nature of these incongruities?

[Qfwfq]

If you consider your definitions to be sufficiently different from mine that they do not predefine the results of your experiments, I suggest that you need to prove your case.

I don't see tha it's me that needs to prove it. I think we agree that any eneavour to prove that water runs downhill is a wasted effort, even if one uses a plumb line to determine which way downhill is. You say you have shown classical mechanics to be true by definition but I'm still not so sure and this would really not cover all of physics, in any case it's a claim of yours and I'm not the one that must prove, I'm free to criticize but this has often been fruitless in past occasions.

 

Suppose, for instance, we examined all experiments to measure the mass of the proton. Where is the truth by definition?

[Doctordick]

You say you have shown classical mechanics to be true by definition but I'm still not so sure and this would really not cover all of physics, in any case it's a claim of yours and I'm not the one that must prove, I'm free to criticize but this has often been fruitless in past occasions.

Then criticize, but don't make fruitless criticisms of the abstract proposition, make some criticisms of the logic itself. As I have said many times, I have given you a definition of "an explanation" in the form of a analytic truth (per Kant's definition of such) and shown explicitly that my fundamental equation follows directly from that definition. I then proceeded to show explicitly how to find the form of equation which a single element must obey without making any assumptions of what the rest of the universe was doing. I then went on to show that Schrodinger's equation was a non relativistic (valid only when the energy of that element was given by E=mc^2) approximation to that one body solution. During that demonstration, I provided several additional definitions (momentum, mass, energy) all specifically in terms of mathematical expressions (i.e., definitions provided as simple "analytic truths"). Either point out an error in my deductions or agree that the deductions follow from the definitions; the issue is as simple as that.

 

Against this, you put forth your faith in the validity of the modern physics viewpoint. But you should consider exactly what "modern physics" based on? It is a complex construct, based entirely upon the assumption that they knew what "the rest of the universe was doing". Each issue of their arguments is based upon the unexamined assumption that the foundations on which the relevant issue is based (namely the world view established by your subconscious mind) is a valid representation of reality. Just as the religious arguments of the dark ages were based on the assumption of the validity of their religious beliefs. In which house does rationality reside and who is making "extraordinary claims" which require "extraordinary evidence"? Your faith in authority is getting in the way of your rationality.

Suppose, for instance, we examined all experiments to measure the mass of the proton. Where is the truth by definition?

Strange you should ask that. As a matter of fact, the answer lies within the definition of mass, but the deduction is far from trivial as it requires analytic analysis of the many body problem itself. It was, in fact, the solution to that problem which led me to notice that relationship I presented to turtle as "A simple geometric proof with profound consequences".

 

I never said the deductions were trivial; what I have said is that the consequences of one's definitions must be examined carefully, quite another matter.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

Then criticize, but don't make fruitless criticisms of the abstract proposition, make some criticisms of the logic itself.

Criticism of the logic itself is what I do, when I'm able to do so. Much more often, unfortunately:

 

Either point out an error in my deductions or agree that the deductions follow from the definitions; the issue is as simple as that.

Tertium non datur? :xx:

 

I'm instead reduced to trying to make sense of your definitions and deductions, before I can agree to them as being analytical. As I have said many times, I haven't yet got your definition of "an explanation" in the form of a analytic truth quite straight, enough to be fully 100% convinced that your fundamental equation follows directly from that definition.

 

The real problem is when you respond to either critique, or queries for greater clarity, with attitudes that have no place in philosophical debate.

 

Against this, you put forth your faith in the validity of the modern physics viewpoint.

You say this every time I point out that your statements about "what the modern physics viewpoint is" are false.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that "modern physics" is based entirely upon the assumption that they knew what "the rest of the universe was doing". The methods of natural philosophy, separated from epistemology as well as from metaphysics, are just a manner of isolating sub-problems with "assumptions" and requisites to the purpose of making them tractable. Let's take an especially amusing example:

 

The Theorem of Energy Conservation.

 

As a theorem (not the more general principle!) it is a very simple thing. What is the main hypothesis on which it rests????? Wow! Wait for this one folks... the essential, sine qua non, hypothesis I'm talking about is... that the force must be assumed to be... <roll o'the drums>

 

CONSERVATIVE!!!! :doh:

 

Now, let's hear what you make out of that. :embarass:

 

Strange you should ask that. As a matter of fact, the answer lies within the definition of mass, but the deduction is far from trivial as it requires analytic analysis of the many body problem itself. It was, in fact, the solution to that problem which led me to notice that relationship I presented to turtle as "A simple geometric proof with profound consequences".

Are you saying that, from nary but the very definition of mass, one may analytically deduce the proton's mass? Well, let's hear it! So long as it's something I can make sense of, that keeps to the point without any sniping.

 

I understood the geometrical theorem, I even explained it to Turtle who was in difficulty, but I don't see the consequences and I've been waiting for them (in that thread).

 

I never said the deductions were trivial; what I have said is that the consequences of one's definitions must be examined carefully, quite another matter.

This is somewhat the point of philosophical debate, I don't see why you keep saying it, and elated things, as if it were a novelty that you are trying to teach the academia which refuses to understand it.

[Doctordick]

Well, I am obviously a rather strange person with a rather strange outlook. When I was probably about three years old, my father (who had just had a somewhat intense argument with a relative) told me that "anyone who believes more than ten percent of what he hears, or more than fifty percent of what he reads, or more than ninety percent of what he sees with his own eyes is gullible!" At the time, I had no idea what "percent" was nor what "gullible" meant; but I certainly knew I didn't want to be one (I think I had the idea it was a birth defect of some kind, like "hydrocephali") and wanted to be very careful about what I believed.

 

I am sure you are aware of the adult penchant for teasing children. I very soon noticed that they were always quite pleased whenever I caught them pulling my leg (so to speak). It was not long before I was totally convinced that adults lied to children all the time. I never took it as malicious; in fact, I thought they did it in order to train us not to be gullible (which may in fact be the real reason behind that common phenomena). Now every child wants to be adult so I soon started pretending I believed everything they said, going right along with the adults when they talked about santa claus, the easter bunny or any other "stories" they put forth.

 

To make a long story short, when I went off to school, I wasted an awful lot of my time trying to figure out what part of what the teacher said I was supposed to believe. It didn't make me a good student and by the third grade, I was pretty well convinced I was indeed gullible as I had found it very difficult to figure out what I was supposed to believe and I began trying to hide my inability to solve the problem. The other kids seemed not to be bothered at all; they had no problem rolling out the same kinds of stuff the adults produced apparently not bothered in the slightest by the inconsistencies. I didn't find out that they really believed it all until those late night bull sessions at the fraternity house in college. I was initially quite astonished by their beliefs (but that's another story).

 

Just a funny anecdote; one day, when I was in the third grade, the teacher said, "it is against the rules to use a word in its definition because you would have to know the meaning of the word to understand the definition". Now I didn't say anything but it immediately occurred to me that the same problem existed if one didn't know the meaning of one of the words in the first definition: i.e., the original word could not be in the second definition or we wouldn't be able to understand it. Clearly, from this perspective, the dictionary is a totally circular construct (there is nothing in there but words).

 

Not realizing (at the time) how complex a problem that is, I went to the dictionary in the class room to see how many definitions I had to look up before I found the original word in the collection of definitions. Since, from my child's perspective, I didn't see any reason to pick any particular word as my start point, I chose "a", the first entry in the dictionary. I was quite astonished when I read the definition. The dictionary said, "a: the first letter of the alphabet, a pronoun ...". I immediately closed the dictionary and went back to my desk convinced the teacher had just given us a gullibility check, and confident that she and I were on the same page. However, it did start me thinking about how one knows that they are not wrong about what they think the meaning of a word is. By the way, I think you would be astonished by how often "a" is used in the definition of "a".

 

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that, counter to the studied opinion of Eric England,

First, let's get this one straightened out. The English language, taken all the way back to its roots, and with all of its inter-implications recognized, is a about as vague as a bullet in the head.

the verbal languages used by mankind are fraught with possible misinterpretation. Even mathematics, the most well defined language has its problems.

 

As I said, I was a very poor student and, in the forth grade, my teacher took me aside after class where she told me that I shouldn't worry about tests. She said that the tests were really tests of her ability to teach and that she needed to know where she had failed. Being the person I was, I thought she wanted to know what I did and did not understand so I thereafter viewed studying for a test as cheating. I did the homework, read the assignments and listened to what the teachers said but I never studied for a test again. I let my teachers train me to answer their tests and utterly stopped worrying about believing anything they said; however, it freed my mind to think about the problem of "how do you decide what to believe". In many respects, that was the only thing I thought about, I just went with my gut without thought on everything else.

 

I ended up in physics because, other than mathematics (which has very little to say about reality), physicists seem to do a better job of defending their assertions than any other fields. That is, they did until I got to graduate school. In graduate school, they got to be as bad as all the other fields; as I would say, "chock full of required beliefs". I went to graduate school in physics because I wanted to understand reality, not because I wanted to "do physics" and they seriously let me down. I distinctly got the impression that the more educated people got, the less they thought about what they believed.

 

I only put that down because I suspect you don't comprehend where I am coming from (a childish mind trying to understand what it should and shouldn't believe).

I'm instead reduced to trying to make sense of your definitions and deductions, before I can agree to them as being analytical. As I have said many times, I haven't yet got your definition of "an explanation" in the form of a analytic truth quite straight, enough to be fully 100% convinced that your fundamental equation follows directly from that definition.

You see, right here I do not understand your difficulty. I have no idea what you mean by "trying to make sense of [my] definitions". I could be wrong but I certainly get the impression that what you are actually trying to do is relate those definitions to your beliefs: i.e., understand them in terms of your world view (which you believe to be perfectly valid).

Thus I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

One cannot get much simpler than that. "An explanation" is "what is being defined"; I don't think that part can be made any clearer. The fundamental part of the definition is that it is "a method". That would be a procedure, a means of getting from a to b, a mathematical function: i.e., b (wherever you are trying to go) being a function of a (wherever you are starting from). The story which allows you to get to b from a. If you need more on that issue, let me know and we can discuss it. The final part is calling where we start "known information" and where we want to go "expectations". To me that seems quite clear. As I have said many times, give me what you consider an explanation which yields no expectations or something which yields expectations which you don't think could be considered an explanation (I think those conditions pretty well cover the bases). And, if you don't call "what your explanations are based on" information, give me another term which seems more appropriate to you.

 

The sets A, B, C and D are mere symbols for totally undefined sets. Their definitions are part of the explanation to be found and must be obtained from the "known information", C.

The real problem is when you respond to either critique, or queries for greater clarity, with attitudes that have no place in philosophical debate.

Yeah I know, but I get impatient. These forums often hit me as being on about the same intellectual level as a box of puppies with about the same attention span. I am sincerely sorry.

You say this every time I point out that your statements about "what the modern physics viewpoint is" are false.

Here we can agree to disagree. I think you merely misinterpret the central issues in those statements you refer to.

I don't know where you get the idea that "modern physics" is based entirely upon the assumption that they knew what "the rest of the universe was doing".

As with this example, you are clearly misinterpreting my intentions when I used the phrase "what the rest of the universe was doing". What I am referring to is their overwhelming belief in the validity of their world view. I think you are having problems with exactly the same issue in your so called "attempts to understand my definitions"; in my opinion, you just don't recognize it.

The methods of natural philosophy, separated from epistemology as well as from metaphysics, are just a manner of isolating sub-problems with "assumptions" and requisites to the purpose of making them tractable. Let's take an especially amusing example:

 

The Theorem of Energy Conservation.

 

As a theorem (not the more general principle!) it is a very simple thing. What is the main hypothesis on which it rests????? Wow! Wait for this one folks... the essential, sine qua non, hypothesis I'm talking about is... that the force must be assumed to be... <roll o'the drums>

 

CONSERVATIVE!!!! :)

 

Now, let's hear what you make out of that. :D

I have utterly no idea of what you are driving at here. I can make no sense of it at all.

Are you saying that, from nary but the very definition of mass, one may analytically deduce the proton's mass? Well, let's hear it! So long as it's something I can make sense of, that keeps to the point without any sniping.

If you can't make any sense of what I have already said, why should I think that you could make sense of any of the deeper aspects of solving my fundamental equation? Let us get simpler things out of the way first.

I don't see why you keep saying it, and [related] things, as if it were a novelty that you are trying to teach the academia which refuses to understand it.

Well, it seems to me that I am saying some rather simple things which no one seems to want to think about. If I am wrong show me; think about them a little.

Perhaps it still might help to work on some aspects, starting from antagonism and abrasivity, but certainly I think part of your trouble lies in misconceiving what "the common position of the scientific community" is.

As far as "antagonism and abrasivity" are concerned, I apologize but I am afraid I am an old man and somewhat tired of dealing with the sensitivity of others particularly when dealing with them offers nothing but perturbation. With regard to "the common position of the scientific community", I am afraid you are not objective on that issue being somewhat tainted by your overwhelming faith in the subject as taught. Of course, that's an opinion.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

Now that's a very amusing story, Dick, and it says a lot about your lifelong struggle. When I was hardly at grade 1 yet, I had been told about how we see, hear and receive other senses through nerves that reach the brain, where our mind and conciousness is. I went further than thinking about the adults deceiving us, I realized that I couldn't be sure that everything I saw, heard etc. actually exists! I've always been aware that each of us has no whatsoever way of checking whether or not the "reality" that we perceive is actually out there, or just a simulation.

 

However, I never let it trouble me so much.

 

If you are so troubled by the shortcomings of language and would like to devise a perfect one, look up the story of Wittgenstein.

 

When I talk about trying to make sense of your definitions and deductions I mean the derivation of your fundamental equation and your application of it to quantum mechanics. Quite simply, I don't have all details straight and, although I can see your overall meaning, I'm not yet 100% sure I could agree with it. I mean this in terms of following your logic and mathematical analysis starting from your interpretaition of the usual sets, A B C and D (and the notation you use, in parts). When I read your derivation of the Shrödinger equation you appeared to be interpreting C and D as the initial and final states in transition amplitudes, but I still don't get the way you treat them in deriving the fundamental equation.

 

Given your attitudes in discussing it all, you can well expect most people to bother a lot less with it and I'm not sure myself if it's worth the time and effort. Time ago you told me of the triangle of rejections you had faced since trying to comunicate your ideas to others, you could well have shown philosophers (the right ones, at least) that the topic is indeed philosophy. When I tried to tell you this, even giving a well known example of an epistemologist that discusses physics and uses plenty of mathematical notation, you reacted by scorning his work instead of catching my point. All things considered, I'm not sure I could help you.

[Doctordick]

If you are so troubled by the shortcomings of language and would like to devise a perfect one, look up the story of Wittgenstein.

And exactly where did I make any comments about wanting to devise a perfect language? You seem to invariably misunderstand my comments. I was talking about the problem of understanding itself. You think you understand the language you speak but that is an assumption you cannot prove.

When I read your derivation of the Shrödinger equation you appeared to be interpreting C and D as the initial and final states in transition amplitudes, but I still don't get the way you treat them in deriving the fundamental equation.

I looked at my derivation in detail and, as far as I was able to see, I never even mentioned the sets C and D. That derivation was no more than proving that Schrodinger's equation was an approximation to my fundamental equation. It has absolutely nothing to do with how I came to the fundamental equation itself. It would make utterly no difference in the derivation if I had simply pulled it out of the air! You are very clearly confusing two very different issues.

All things considered, I'm not sure I could help you.

Help me at what? All I was trying to do is explain some simple things which you seem bound and determined to avoid thinking about. Seriously, I can find no indication at all that you have any intention of considering any aspects of what I am talking about.

 

By the way, the issue of complexity out of simplicity concerned the geometric proof itself. The projection of a rotating n dimensional equilateral polygon (quite a simple concept) yielding the complexity of absolutely any three dimensional collection of of n points (the complexity of the entire universe) pretty well covers the issue of the possible range of emergent phenomena.

 

Have fun -- Dick