"a Universal Representation Of Rules"

[Bombadil]

Or, is it DoctorDick that is not talking about time comprehensively, and that what he calls his tau axis is in fact the correct understanding of time as relates to space as shown by General Relativity, e.g., the Einstein concept of the spacetime interval. I think it very important for us to recall that Einstein used two concepts of time based on frame of reference and movement, which are (1) proper time and (2) coordinate time, and it is my undersatnding that both concepts are needed to lead to his new revolutionary concept of the spacetime interval. So Bombadil I think you may have it correct, it does appear that the concept of time I suggest is the concept of the Einstein spacetime interval. This may help explain why I said that the presentation of DoctorDick leads to an unneeded tau axis, that is, his tau axis is in fact the proper understanding of time as relates to space as given by GR Theory.

 

So, we need to be very, very clear exactly what concept of time DoctorDick puts forth, that is, is the "t" in the presentation the Einstein concept of (1) proper time OR that of (2) coordinate time, or (3) some new understanding of time not presented by Einstein.

 

Just what do you mean by space time do you mean a real object that we can travel back and forth on like in all the time travel stories? If so I think it is quite safe to say that such a thing is not a direct consequence of having expectations.

 

The problem is that DoctorDick is using a different geometry then Einstein. If you really want to know the answer I think that it is in the thread “The Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict” but if you really want to understand that thread then I think that you will have to talk to DoctorDick.

 

But in short how I understand it, as I said DoctorDick is using a different geometry then you ordinary would in relativity what you are calling proper time is considered arc length in relativity this also happens to be what clocks are suppose to measure, why Einstien did this I don't know, I think it was perhaps an overly literal take of physics. it sound like a recipe for making the resulting problems very hard to me. While coordinate time in Einstien's work seems more closely related to the idea of simultaneity but it seems you can't measure it.

 

If you look at DoctorDicks' work for just a little while you will see that ark length is “t” and if things are going to be simultaneous then it is “t” that will tell us, as it is “t” that defines an order to all other axises, further more there is no reason to believe that a clock will measure “t” in fact if you read some of the other threads you will see that a clock won't measure “t”.

 

This makes no sense to me because DoctorDick has said many times that his presentation deals with the problem to be solved of how to form a mental image of reality. Well, one cannot form a mental image outside human experience, so I am very sorry I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

To me this is a rather limited way of thinking, just think about this for a minuet, what do you mean when you say you want to form a mental image of reality. Do you think that your mental image is my mental image.

 

The point is we have no interest in what a mental image looks like, what we want to know is what are the consequence of having “rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances” you on the other hand seem to just be asking what the hypothetical circumstances are, you also seem to be assuming that what you see as reality are in fact real and not just hypothetical circumstances.

 

Your comment is a little difficult to follow...especially your "something" that we obtain expectation about. So, you are saying first is a 'something' that generates undefined information that enters human experience...that the 'something' is like an alien black box generating undefined information that humans seek to understand. There is nothing remarkable about this, there is in information science and cybernetics a long history of theory how to deal with undefined information generated by alien black boxes. I suppose it could be said that DoctorDick adds a new fundamental equation that may be of value to those that study cybernetics, perhaps those are the types of people he needs to review his presentation ?

 

I am saying there is no need for the black box, to find out an awful lot about what would be expected to come out of such a black box.

 

My take home lesson from the derivation by DoctorDick is that I find that his fundamental equation may be an accurate mathematical representation of how the human mind transforms concepts derived mentally from undefined information into definitions that can be used for communication. Perhaps I error, no problem, I am here to learn.

 

I think that you are missing something here, DoctorDicks derivation has nothing to do with how a human mind preforms any kind of transformation, for that matter it has nothing to do with the human mind.

 

What it has to do with is the consequences of remaining consistent when “rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances” are needed.

[Bombadil]

The “general explanations” I have uncovered are mere consequences of my definitions (i.e., circularly defined); however, this cannot be taken as proof that all “explanations” are circularly defined. There may exist an explanation which actually is not circularly defined; if such a thing exists, it would imply that some relationship which does solve my equation can be proved to never occur in reality. Such an event would imply that my equation is insufficient to separate what can be found from what can't be found. To date, I have been able to find no such case. Every case apparently solving my equation is represented by some situation accepted by the physics community as a statement about reality: i.e., I can find no experiment which separates our universe from “all possible universes”. Everything which solves my equation appears to be observable phenomena.

 

Shouldn't it be possible to deduce the needed conditions for there to exist possible solutions to the fundamental equation that are not circularly defined without ever having to actually solve for the solutions.

 

That is, I am asking what would any solution of the fundamental equation have to satisfy in order for us to say that all possible solutions to the fundamental equation are circularly defined. Certainly we wouldn't have to actually find a solution to prove whether or not one exists.

 

Do you think “true” understanding of a language actually exists? When you get to be as old as I am, you will begin to comprehend what authorities mean by a “living language”. You will begin to see the various changes in meaning used by the young. I used to think my grandfather was warped when he used to insist that I use the word “yon”. He taught English at one time and he held that there were three articles in the English language: this, that and yon. “This” was an object near the speaker, “that” was an object near the listener and “yon” was an object near neither. I am today very disturbed by the vanishing of the word “fewer” people now use “less” for all circumstances and apparently have no concept of the difference. I now understand my grandfathers problem with my failure to use the word "yon".

 

I can't say that I have ever heard the word yon used and if I had I don't think that I would have even thought that that was the meaning for the word.

 

But I suspect that my use of the term “true understanding” has more to do with what I mean by understanding then what we mean by “true”. By understanding I think of a transfer of information that has a consistent interpretation. So by true understanding I mean something that has a truly consistent interpretation, not something that has a correct interpretation of the information being transfered which is something that can never be known and may not even exist.

 

You are overlooking a subtle but serious issue here. Two people may live within a context totally different from the other. If those two people have a contact of some sort (some channel of communications), they may very well come up with an explanation of the others communication consistent with their model of the universe they find themselves in. That model includes the meanings of the communication elements. Thus it becomes possible that there is no resemblance whatsoever between the collections of circumstance which make up their universes. At the same time if both possess a valid explanation of their universe they may very well think they are talking about exactly the same thing. If both explanations satisfy my fundamental equation, there is utterly no way to uncover the differences in their universes.

 

But if this is in fact the case, and their universes are very different in the sense that neither one would recognize the others universe if they saw it, and yet both of them are able to communicate in a consistent way to the other then I see no reason to say that they are not talking about the same thing

[Rade]

Just what do you mean by space time do you mean a real object that we can travel back and forth on like in all the time travel stories?

thank you for your comments, they are very helpful. For this question, no, I do not accept that spacetime is a real object that entities can travel on. For me, spacetime is a model, not a real object. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

The problem is that DoctorDick is using a different geometry then Einstein.

Yes' date=' I understand that DD adopts a 5 dimensional approach that differs from Einstein. I have no problem with 5 dimensional geometry, using such approach the Kaluza-Klein Theory long ago (1929) showed how 5 dimensions can unite gravity with electromagnetic force, and more recently it is shown how EM force unites to strong force, thus Kaluza-Klein Theory allows for understanding how gravity is united to both EM and strong forces, and how to then use this theory to make predictions about some future circumstance. So sure, 5 dimensional (and higher) approaches can result in many new ways to predict the future. But alas, the presentation of DD and his resulting fundamental equation absolutely has nothing at all to do with predicting the future, a fundamental constraint on its usefulness, even if it has some other value.

 

But in short how I understand it, as I said DoctorDick is using a different geometry then you ordinary would in relativity what you are calling proper time is considered arc length in relativity this also happens to be what clocks are suppose to measure, why Einstien did this I don't know, I think it was perhaps an overly literal take of physics. it sound like a recipe for making the resulting problems very hard to me. While coordinate time in Einstien's work seems more closely related to the idea of simultaneity but it seems you can't measure it.

It is known why Einstein concluded that proper time, what he called tau, the arc length in relativity, is what clocks measure. See here for an easy to understand explanation how the arc length of proper time (tau) is measured by clocks in the geometry of Einstein:

http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/karcher/EinsteinClocks.pdf

 

To me this is a rather limited way of thinking' date=' just think about this for a minuet, what do you mean when you say you want to form a mental image of reality. Do you think that your mental image is my mental image. The point is we have no interest in what a mental image looks like, what we want to know is what are the consequence of having “rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances” you on the other hand seem to just be asking what the hypothetical circumstances are, you also seem to be assuming that what you see as reality are in fact real and not just hypothetical circumstances.[/quote']First, you do realize that it was the claim of DD that his presentation is about the problem to be solved of how humans form a mental image of reality, correct ? I can cite the thread he created if needed. So, this is not my statement. Second, of course whatever mental image you form would not to be the same image I form, it is such a silly question you ask I can only scratch my head to try and understand why it was asked ? As to what the point is, of course we have no interest in what the mental image looks like, although some brainwave pattern of that image could be produced, the point is that we want to know the output (as logical consequence) of having rational expectations of mental images no matter what such images look like.

 

I am saying there is no need for the black box' date=' to find out an awful lot about what would be expected to come out of such a [b']black box[/b].

Then what you say is not logical, for if no black box then nothing is expected to allow for the expectation you desire, not even in your imagination. Nothing, I mean nothing imagined or not imagined, has origin without first some undefined black box exists with undefined output of information. Note also that you claim no need for a concept of 'black box', then you use that concept to explain why it is not needed, a logical fallacy.

 

I think that you are missing something here' date=' DoctorDicks derivation has nothing to do with how a human mind preforms any kind of transformation, for that matter it has nothing to do with the human mind. What it has to do with is the consequences of remaining consistent when “rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances” are needed.[/quote']? Is not a human mind required to remain consistent ?

Edited March 14, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Shouldn't it be possible to deduce the needed conditions for there to exist possible solutions to the fundamental equation that are not circularly defined without ever having to actually solve for the solutions.

 

The fundamental equation is itself circularly defined by construction: i.e., there are no constraints expressed which do not directly fall out of the specific definitions given. Yeah, if you can come up with a condition which can not be expressed in terms of my representation (a collection of points in a four dimensional space). Then you have discovered a possibility which is not circularly defined. But think about that! Can you conceive of something which impossible to represent?? Explain it to me if you can.

 

What Rade can not comprehend is that the explanation itself represents what he is discussing. I hope you are not being held by the same issue.

 

That is, I am asking what would any solution of the fundamental equation have to satisfy in order for us to say that all possible solutions to the fundamental equation are circularly defined. Certainly we wouldn't have to actually find a solution to prove whether or not one exists.

 

Everything in my presentation is derived directly from definition and nothing else. That is essentially what “circularly defined” means. If it is a solution to my equation, it is circularly defined.

 

I can't say that I have ever heard the word yon used and if I had I don't think that I would have even thought that that was the meaning for the word.

 

I don't “know” either. All I know is what my grandfather told me. At least he thought that is what it meant. Again, children guess what words mean and they don't always guess the same thing as their parents. The word “incredible” to me always meant “not worthy of being believed”. I now see that as my guess when I was a child. Now days no one thinks incredible has anything to do with believable.

 

By understanding I think of a transfer of information that has a consistent interpretation.

 

So you do not think more than one consistent interpretation can exist? I think that is a bit closed minded. By the way, “correct” means, at least in my head, that an error will never be found. There are lots of “correct” things which can be said. “What is” is “what is” is probably without error. I always got a kick out of the fact that god told Moses that his name was, I am that I am. Was he lying or not?

 

Circularly defined things are true by definition.

 

... then I see no reason to say that they are not talking about the same thing

 

I agree with you one hundred percent. However that assertion kind of stops one from thinking of alternative interpretations. Being able to come up with alternative interpretations is the key to seeing solutions when when your “understanding” turns out to be in error. That is what led me down the path I took fifty years ago.

 

Yes, I understand that DD adopts a 5 dimensional approach that differs from Einstein. I have no problem with 5 dimensional geometry, ...

 

I use a four dimensional geometry! Time is not a dimension of my picture of the universe. I use time as no more than an ordering parameter on my experiences.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

Yeah, if you can come up with a condition which can not be expressed in terms of my representation (a collection of points in a four dimensional space). Then you have discovered a possibility which is not circularly defined. But think about that! Can you conceive of something which impossible to represent?? Explain it to me if you can.

Since you ask. From geometry it is known that a sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane, using your four dimensional space representation, without distortion. [search MAP PROJECTION term on Wiki]. So sure, it is possible to conceive of something (perfect circle on a flat plane) that it would be impossible for you to represent as a perfect circle. Edited March 15, 2013 by Rade

[Rade]

I use a four dimensional geometry! Time is not a dimension of my picture of the universe. I use time as no more than an ordering parameter on my experiences.

Well, this is just incorrect of the GEOMETRY you present. Here is a standard definition of the term dimension as used in mathematics, and note very, very carefully the important word 'or':

 

"dimension: dimension, in mathematics, number of parameters or coordinates required locally to describe points in a mathematical object"(usually geometric in character)) http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/dimension-mathematics.html#ixzz2NePYSFFB

 

Since you claim your presentation applies to physics, physicists are interested in EVENTS or something that happens at a specific place in a specific time, and given that your presentation mixes 4 coordinates (each coordinate a dimension by mathematical definition) and 1 order parameter you decide to call time (with parameter also a dimension by mathematical definition), then your presentation uses a five dimensional geometry :( I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, but you have a false understanding of how many mathematical dimensions are used in your presentation. This observation leads to the question for the readers of this thread, why use your 5 dimensional geometric presentation when it adds nothing but needless complexity to the 4 dimensional approach of Einstein, and takes away what Einstein approach does very well...e.g., make predictions of future events ?

Edited March 16, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

Since you ask. From geometry it is known that a sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane, using your four dimensional space representation, without distortion. [search MAP PROJECTION term on Wiki]. So sure, it is possible to conceive of something (perfect circle on a flat plane) that it would be impossible for you to represent as a perfect circle.

 

You are a complete idiot! You seem to possess utterly no comprehension of the meaning of the word "represent". The collection of pixels on a video screen, ordered key presses on a keyboard or internet packets of zeros and ones used to represent "a sphere" provides an excellent representation of a sphere as you have just used it for that very purpose!

 

"dimension: dimension, in mathematics, number of parameters or coordinates required locally to describe points in a mathematical object"(usually geometric in character)) http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/dimension-mathematics.html#ixzz2NePYSFFB

 

And you again confirm the extent of your mental inabilities again! My definition of time is an ordering parameter related to your explanations and is not required to "locally describe any points". It does nothing except lay out the order of the information one has acquired and is able to work with. It is a totally fictitious element created for convenience and is not “geometric in character” as it is totally unknowable.

 

What I am talking about is so far beyond your comprehension that your thinking you understand the simplest embedded issue is absolutely ridiculous.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Rade]

You are a complete idiot! You seem to possess utterly no comprehension of the meaning of the word "represent". The collection of pixels on a video screen, ordered key presses on a keyboard or internet packets of zeros and ones used to represent "a sphere" provides an excellent representation of a sphere as you have just used it for that very purpose!

OK, I see in your hast to reply you did not see the term "without distortion". So sure, this geometric figure o is a good perhaps excellent representation of a circle, but not of a perfect circle, e.g., without distortion. Planck Law tells us it is impossible to graphically represent a perfect circle on a plane.

 

And you again confirm the extent of your mental inabilities again! My definition of time is an ordering parameter related to your explanations and is not required to "locally describe any points". It does nothing except lay out the order of the information one has acquired and is able to work with. It is a totally fictitious element created for convenience and is not “geometric in character” as it is totally unknowable.

OK' date=' so time for you is that which (1) lays out order of information (2) is fictitious (3) unknowable. But, any parameter that lays out an order is a vector, which is nothing more than a scalar having magnitude with added dimension of direction. So, time in your presentation is a fictitious and unknowable vector dimension as a ordering parameter of information (x1,x2,...) So, you have a 4 (non fictitious dimension) + 1 (fictitious dimension) = 5 dimensional presentation.

 

Edit: Another issue is the fact that in physics an "ordering parameter" is defined as something physical, yet you assign time to be an ordering parameter to be fictitious and unknowable: http://www.sklogwiki.org/SklogWiki/index.php/Order_parameters. (seems to a problem with the link, here is the definition: {[b']An order parameter is some observable physical quantity that is able to distinguish between two distinct phases.[/b] The choice of order parameter is not necessarily unique. .} So, since you are clear that time is used as a ordering parameter in your presentation, by this definition it is not fictitious and unknowable, it must be something physical. Your use does meet the requirement of being able to distinguish and order specific circumstance.

 

Also, while I have your attention, since you claim that time is not what clocks measure, what do clocks measure ?

 

Edit: According to your presentation, a t index, as ordering parameter, can be assigned to a specific circumstance (x1,x2,x3,xn...t) and such a t index is a continuous variable, that can be numerical in nature. So, suppose an archeologist who discovers a new fossil bone fragment looks at his watch the moment it is discovered (= the present) and records in his field notebook that the bone was discovered at 06:54 hours, on March 1, 1987. In this case, the continuous variable t that would be added to that specific circumstance, is what is measured by a clock. Thus, it just makes no sense when you say time is not measured by a clock. Time for you is an ordering parameter represented by a t index, a continuous variable, and this t variable can be given a numerical representation (06:54 hours) as done by the archeologist, thus time for you is a number that can be measured by a clock at a specific moment (=present) when there is a specific addition to a circumstance.

 

You know, I bore of teaching you what the hell you have no idea how to present in a rational manner. So good news for you, you will see no further post in the future from this idiot.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Rade

[Doctordick]

I present this, not as a comment to Rade (thank god he has decided to absent himself, if I believed him) as I know he can not comprehend anything I say. Consider this as a comment to others who read this thread as I believe there are others.
 

OK, I see in your hast to reply you did not see the term "without distortion". So sure, this geometric figure o is a good perhaps excellent representation of a circle, but not of a perfect circle, e.g., without distortion. Planck Law tells us it is impossible to graphically represent a perfect circle on a plane.

 

Again, this is an absolutely idiotic response! Rade is clearly confusing “representation” with “what is being represented”. If one examines the definition of “representation” they should discover something similar to the phrase, “the designation by some term, character, symbol, or the like”.
 

So, you have a 4 (non fictitious dimension) + 1 (fictitious dimension) = 5 dimensional presentation.

 

If anyone reading this can show me a discussion of any geometry (not produced by Rade) which considers “path length” to be another “dimension” of the geometry I would appreciate it. Rade has no comprehension whatsoever of what I am talking about. I brought up the issue of order in handling the idea that explanations are derived from known information, not the entirety of possible information. It was the fact that the concept of time handles such circumstances in common physics which led me to use the word for the mechanism I needed (the past is what is known and the future is what is not known). I then showed that path length in my geometry could handle the issue.
 

So, since you are clear that time is used as a ordering parameter in your presentation, by this definition it is not fictitious and unknowable, it must be something physical. Your use does meet the requirement of being able to distinguish and order specific circumstance.

 

My presentation makes no assumption of true order in specific circumstances; just order in ones knowledge of those circumstances! Rade is making the assumption that circumstances have a “true order” which makes his view presumptive of the reality of the issue of order. Clearly he is totally incapable of considering all possible explanations of reality: i.e., if circumstances exist which are not in reality ordered they are apparently beyond his comprehension.
 

Also, while I have your attention, since you claim that time is not what clocks measure, what do clocks measure ?

 

The path length of their representation in my geometry. Which, by the way, is exactly what they measure in Einstein's four dimensional geometry. Or perhaps Rade thinks that Einstein's geometry is five dimensional as it also has “path length”.
 

Edit: According to your presentation, a t index, as ordering parameter, can be assigned to a specific circumstance (x1,x2,x3,xn...t) and such a t index is a continuous variable, that can be numerical in nature. So, suppose an archeologist who discovers a new fossil bone fragment looks at his watch the moment it is discovered (= the present) and records in his field notebook that the bone was discovered at 06:54 hours, on March 1, 1987. In this case, the continuous variable t that would be added to that specific circumstance, is what is measured by a clock.

 

Rade here is confusing the order of the discovery with order in the archaeologists explanation of that bone. I know of no archaeologist who would presume that bone simply appeared the moment he discovered it. However, one must regard that possibility as real otherwise they are not including the possibility that some future explanation might include such a possibility. Rade invariably misses the total issue of “absolute generality”. It is something he wishes not to consider.
 

Time for you is an ordering parameter represented by a t index, a continuous variable, ...

 

My time is a simple ordering parameter and, so long as the total information is finite, the number of indices “t” is finite; however if one is to include the possibility that the total unknown information is infinite (certainly a possibility) one must include the possibility that an explanation exist which might require some circumstance between two of the already defined indices. That is, in fact, the definition of a continuous variable. Not allowing t to be continuous makes the assumption that the total information in the universe is finite. Thus it fails the generality test.

Rade simply can not comprehend the problem I am solving.
 

You know, I bore of teaching you what the hell you have no idea how to present in a rational manner. So good news for you, you will see no further post in the future from this idiot.

 

Rade has no idea as to how happy that would make me; however, I sincerely doubt its truth as I am convinced he is no more than a mindless troll.

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Bombadil]

The fundamental equation is itself circularly defined by construction: i.e., there are no constraints expressed which do not directly fall out of the specific definitions given. Yeah, if you can come up with a condition which can not be expressed in terms of my representation (a collection of points in a four dimensional space). Then you have discovered a possibility which is not circularly defined. But think about that! Can you conceive of something which impossible to represent?? Explain it to me if you can.

 

Well in that case I think that we can say that there are no explanations that are not circularly defined unless we really can find initial conditions that don't allow solutions to the fundamental equation, the types of explanations that I was thinking about though would be ones that impose some further constraint on the fundamental equation that removes some possible solutions.

 

Everything in my presentation is derived directly from definition and nothing else. That is essentially what “circularly defined” means. If it is a solution to my equation, it is circularly defined.

 

In order for it to be circularly defined wont your presentation also have to be equivalent to your definitions as well? That is if one is true then the other is true. At least that is what I think of when I think circularly defined.

 

don't “know” either. All I know is what my grandfather told me. At least he thought that is what it meant. Again, children guess what words mean and they don't always guess the same thing as their parents. The word “incredible” to me always meant “not worthy of being believed”. I now see that as my guess when I was a child. Now days no one thinks incredible has anything to do with believable.

 

Well I would have said that the word “incredible” means “unlikely but true”

 

So you do not think more than one consistent interpretation can exist? I think that is a bit closed minded. By the way, “correct” means, at least in my head, that an error will never be found. There are lots of “correct” things which can be said. “What is” is “what is” is probably without error. I always got a kick out of the fact that god told Moses that his name was, I am that I am. Was he lying or not?

 

Quite the contrary I think that there are an infinite number of consistent interpretations, however I also think that the set of all consistent interpretations of anything in particular form a “Equivalence class” and so I see little difference in referring to one or all of them at once.

 

I agree with you one hundred percent. However that assertion kind of stops one from thinking of alternative interpretations. Being able to come up with alternative interpretations is the key to seeing solutions when when your “understanding” turns out to be in error. That is what led me down the path I took fifty years ago.

 

I can see your point from a day to day prospective although from the prospective of what this says in general about interpretations I think suggests the question, if you solve a problem in one interpretation then what other interpretations will it work in. my answer is that it must work in all of them or we can say one of them is different.

 

On the other hand I get the impression that many breakthroughs in mathematics are often made by realizing that two very different seeming branches of mathematics are in fact describing the same thing.

[Doctordick]

Well in that case I think that we can say that there are no explanations that are not circularly defined unless we really can find initial conditions that don't allow solutions to the fundamental equation ...

 

I think you have that backwards. If you find “initial conditions that don't allow solutions to the fundamental equation” then the equation is not general. That would be a specific error in my deduction. Or to look at it another way, that means the explanation could not be expressed in any language representable by a finite pattern of symbols (remember, in the final presentation, the language was no more than names for specific patterns).

 

... , the types of explanations that I was thinking about though would be ones that impose some further constraint on the fundamental equation that removes some possible solutions.

 

In a sense that is correct. If you found some constraints which removed some of the solutions which satisfy my equation, that would tell you something about the universe. On the other hand, if you found some additional required universal constraints which I had not taken into account and then applied those constraints to my equation, you would be back to exactly the position I am currently in: all solutions would once again be circular.

 

In order for it to be circularly defined wont your presentation also have to be equivalent to your definitions as well? That is if one is true then the other is true. At least that is what I think of when I think circularly defined.

 

Of course! And I brought that issue up when I pointed out that “what is” is “what is” is a perfect solution to everything. As I have said a number of times, when that supposed God told Moses that his name was, “I am that I am”, I suspect that whoever he was, he knew what I know.

 

Well I would have said that the word “incredible” means “unlikely but true”

 

Well that was my very point! The definition of a “living language” is that it changes with every generation. People guess what words mean and they don't always make the same guesses their parents did.

 

Quite the contrary I think that there are an infinite number of consistent interpretations, however I also think that the set of all consistent interpretations of anything in particular form a “Equivalence class” and so I see little difference in referring to one or all of them at once.

 

How can you know they are equivalent? That has to mean they answer all questions with the same answer and you cannot know an infinite quantity of information. Consistent interpretations to known data is not the same as consistent interpretations of all data.

 

I can see your point from a day to day prospective although from the prospective of what this says in general about interpretations I think suggests the question, if you solve a problem in one interpretation then what other interpretations will it work in. my answer is that it must work in all of them or we can say one of them is different.

 

You seem to miss the point that "all" is a rather extensive adjective! Please explain how you would propose to test such a thing?

 

On the other hand I get the impression that many breakthroughs in mathematics are often made by realizing that two very different seeming branches of mathematics are in fact describing the same thing.

 

Yes, and yet that conclusion can be in error. For example, Dirac proved that “wave mechanics” and “matrix mechanics” were identical (or at least thought he had). What he showed is that the mechanical procedure used by each to determine their answers was essentially equivalent, a somewhat different concept. Thus he came up with a new notation which embodied that procedure referred to as the “bra-ket” notation. The symbol <a| was a “bra” and |a> was a “ket”. In wave mechanics, [math]\psi^\dagger[/math] was replaced with a "bra" and [math]\psi[/math] was replaced with a "ket" resulting in a finished entity which looked exactly like a matrix element. The world then went over to “bra-ket” notation which maintained the presumed correct procedure but laid aside much of the underlying logic: i.e., it was a consequence of the interpretation the equivalence of which was presumed.

 

What I show in my work is that all three are essentially approximations to my development although much of the underlying logic is closer allied to Schrödinger's work than to matrix mechanics.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Bombadil]

In a sense that is correct. If you found some constraints which removed some of the solutions which satisfy my equation, that would tell you something about the universe. On the other hand, if you found some additional required universal constraints which I had not taken into account and then applied those constraints to my equation, you would be back to exactly the position I am currently in: all solutions would once again be circular.

 

Well yes but even if we found such solutions we could never prove that they told us something about the universe as we could never prove that it gave consistent results in all cases.

 

However won't this make things like the Dirac equation not circularly defined as it requires the existence of photons which are defined by setting

 

[math] \left\{\frac{i\hbar}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}_2\right\}\vec{\Psi}_1 =c\vec{\alpha}_2\cdot\vec{p}_2\vec{\Psi}_2\vec{\Psi}_1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}|cp_2|\vec{\Psi}_2\vec{\Psi}_1 [/math]

 

Unless of course you see some reason that such elements must exist and not just that they can exist.

 

While your derivation of the Lorenz transformation shows that it is a circularly defined equation since it implies no further definitions.

 

How can you know they are equivalent? That has to mean they answer all questions with the same answer and you cannot know an infinite quantity of information. Consistent interpretations to known data is not the same as consistent interpretations of all data.

 

This I think depends on what we choose to use as an equivalence, I think that all that is important is that we answer all questions that we know the answers to. That is we agree on anything that we would include in the “what is” is “what is” explanation. Anything more then this just seems to be us assuming that our explanation is correct, when it really is no more correct then any other explanation that gives results in the same “what is” is “what is” explanation. That is they would all have an isomorphism of their past to the same “what is” is “what is” explanation.

 

In case you want to know what structure I want to preserve with the isomorphism it is

 

[math] \sum_{i\neq j} \delta(\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j) = 0. [/math]

 

Unless of course you can tell which one corresponds to the universe that you live in and which one corresponds to some totally different universe I see no reason not to treat them as equivalent.

 

You seem to miss the point that "all" is a rather extensive adjective! Please explain how you would propose to test such a thing?

 

How about by contradiction, if we are interpreting the same thing (or there is no way for us to prove that we are not) then if at some point you solve a problem and I can't interpret your solution in a consistent way that solves one of my problems then I must conclude that ether one of us is not using a flaw free explanation or we have found a way to distinguished our universes. And we can no longer say that we can't distinguish them.

[Doctordick]

Bombadil,

Reading your response, I get the definite impression that you are missing the central issue of my presentation. I am examining the consequences flowing from my model of the universe and nothing else. In general that is a rather trivial issue! All scientists are interested in the consequences of their models so what the hell is different about my concerns? What is different is that I have taken great pains to make sure that my model can represent all possibilities. As such, the consequences of the model tell us absolutely nothing about reality: i.e., by design, there exists no reality which fails to conform to my model.

 

However won't this make things like the Dirac equation not circularly defined as it requires the existence of photons which are defined by setting

[math] \left\{\frac{i\hbar}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}_2\right\}\vec{\Psi}_1 =c\vec{\alpha}_2\cdot\vec{p}_2\vec{\Psi}_2\vec{\Psi}_1=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}|cp_2|\vec{\Psi}_2\vec{\Psi}_1 [/math]

Unless of course you see some reason that such elements must exist and not just that they can exist.

 

They must exist in all universes as they are possibilities in a totally random collection of information. They amount to a context which we may choose to think about: i.e., if we are looking for a collection of “information” (out of a totally random collection) which can be seen as “photons” (their internal relationships constitute a specific set) and we are going to ignore everything else (everything else is “context” to be ignored) then we are examining “photons”. They will exist in all sufficiently large collections of data. Their existence tells us nothing about “reality”, it tells us what we have decided to think about.
 

While your derivation of the Lorenz transformation shows that it is a circularly defined equation since it implies no further definitions.

 

I don't understand what you mean by “it implies no further definitions”. I do not posses an all powerful mentality. Perhaps someone else might discover that it does imply some further definitions are also all incompassing.
 

This I think depends on what we choose to use as an equivalence, I think that all that is important is that we answer all questions that we know the answers to.

 

You can not answer a question you can not ask! Asking the question implies you posses something you regard as an understanding: i.e., you posses meanings to associate with the numbers “x” used in the representation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. That is “knowing” anything implies you are presuming an explanation of something.
 

That is we agree on anything that we would include in the “what is” is “what is” explanation. Anything more then this just seems to be us assuming that our explanation is correct, when it really is no more correct then any other explanation that gives results in the same “what is” is “what is” explanation. That is they would all have an isomorphism of their past to the same “what is” is “what is” explanation.

 

You are omitting the possibility that “their” pasts may have nothing to do with one another.
 

In case you want to know what structure I want to preserve with the isomorphism it is

[math] \sum_{i\neq j} \delta(\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j) = 0. [/math]

Unless of course you can tell which one corresponds to the universe that you live in and which one corresponds to some totally different universe I see no reason not to treat them as equivalent.

 

I do not understand your perspective. You appear to be trying to work with some specific interpretation of those numbers “x”.
 

How about by contradiction, if we are interpreting the same thing (or there is no way for us to prove that we are not) then if at some point you solve a problem and I can't interpret your solution in a consistent way that solves one of my problems then I must conclude that ether one of us is not using a flaw free explanation or we have found a way to distinguished our universes. And we can no longer say that we can't distinguish them.

 

If at some point someone solves a problem and you can't interpret their solution in a consistent way that solves one of your problems then at least one of you is not interpreting their problem in a manner consistent with my representation. And it is more probably both!

Have fun --Dick

 

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Bombadil]

They must exist in all universes as they are possibilities in a totally random collection of information. They amount to a context which we may choose to think about: i.e., if we are looking for a collection of “information” (out of a totally random collection) which can be seen as “photons” (their internal relationships constitute a specific set) and we are going to ignore everything else (everything else is “context” to be ignored) then we are examining “photons”. They will exist in all sufficiently large collections of data. Their existence tells us nothing about “reality”, it tells us what we have decided to think about.

 

So it is really just a question of if photons can be defined in a consistent way with the fundamental equation and since they can we must examine the consequences of including photons in order to examine all possibilities.

 

While I can see that this is a very interesting stance and defiantly one worth examining things from, I still see no reason to assume your first statement that is “They must exist in all universes as they are possibilities in a totally random collection of information.” as this seems to assume that all universes are random, wouldn't we be better off saying that in order to study what may be a totally random universe we must include the existence of photons.

 

You can not answer a question you can not ask! Asking the question implies you posses something you regard as an understanding: i.e., you posses meanings to associate with the numbers “x” used in the representation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. That is “knowing” anything implies you are presuming an explanation of something.

 

Haven't you assumed an explanation in all of your derivations that go beyond the fundamental equation, even if it is a very general explanation. That is at some point you either assume that you can integrate over the rest of the universe and obtain a probability of 1 for all other elements or you have assumed the existence of something you call an object. Granted these are both characteristics that we expect of our explanations to the point that if they don't we must reconsider our definitions used.

 

I am simply saying that two functions lets call them [math] \vec{\Psi}_1 [/math] and [math] \vec{\Psi}_2 [/math] result in equivalent expectations if there exists a function call it G such that

[math] \vec{\Psi}_{1}^\dagger\cdot \vec{\Psi}_1 = (G\vec{\Psi}_1)^\dagger\cdot (G\vec{\Psi}_1) [/math]

if you can't see any possible interest in such functions just consider didn't you use a smiler idea when you shifted every element on the x axis by a fixed amount and said that

[math] P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a,t) = P(x_1+a+\Delta a,x_2+a+\Delta a,\cdots,x_n+a +\Delta a,t) [/math].

 

You are omitting the possibility that “their” pasts may have nothing to do with one another.

 

I'm not trying to say whether or not there pasts have anything to do with each other I am trying to say that for any expectations that one of them has it is possible to map them into the expectations of the other, since their past is clearly the boundary conditions of these expectations then the pasts must be mapped into each other by just such a mapping.

 

If at some point someone solves a problem and you can't interpret their solution in a consistent way that solves one of your problems then at least one of you is not interpreting their problem in a manner consistent with my representation. And it is more probably both!

 

Just what do you mean by interpret their solution I have always assumed that this meant that there existed an invertible mapping from one of their expectations to the others like what I just outlined.

[Doctordick]

So it is really just a question of if photons can be defined in a consistent way with the fundamental equation and since they can we must examine the consequences of including photons in order to examine all possibilities.

 

Essentially, yes.

 

While I can see that this is a very interesting stance and defiantly one worth examining things from, I still see no reason to assume your first statement that is “They must exist in all universes as they are possibilities in a totally random collection of information.” as this seems to assume that all universes are random, wouldn't we be better off saying that in order to study what may be a totally random universe we must include the existence of photons.

 

You must accept the fact that they must exist in whatever universe you are considering because of the very simple fact that you are not all knowing: i.e., since you cannot prove they don't exist without knowing all possibilities, the very finite nature of your knowledge merely implies you haven't run across the consequences of their existence yet. It follows that what you are looking at may very well be a totally random universe: i.e., you can not dismiss the possibility.

 

That is at some point you either assume that you can integrate over the rest of the universe and obtain a probability of 1

 

By the definition of probability, the sum over all possibilities is unity. That is not an assumption, it is rather a consequence of the definition of the term probability.

 

for all other elements or you have assumed the existence of something you call an object.

 

No, I haven't “assumed” the existence of objects. What I have said is that, if a collection circumstances can be seen as not effected by the rest of the universe (essentially a rather common approximation) their behavior can be seen as an independent universe for reference purposes. From that perspective, any circumstance can be seen as “an object” with in infinitesimal time of survival.

 

Granted these are both characteristics that we expect of our explanations to the point that if they don't we must reconsider our definitions used.

 

I am simply saying that two functions lets call them [math] \vec{\Psi}_1 [/math] and [math] \vec{\Psi}_2 [/math] result in equivalent expectations if there exists a function call it G such that

[math] \vec{\Psi}_{1}^\dagger\cdot \vec{\Psi}_1 = (G\vec{\Psi}_1)^\dagger\cdot (G\vec{\Psi}_1) [/math]

if you can't see any possible interest in such functions just consider didn't you use a smiler idea when you shifted every element on the x axis by a fixed amount and said that

[math] P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a,t) = P(x_1+a+\Delta a,x_2+a+\Delta a,\cdots,x_n+a +\Delta a,t) [/math].

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be talking about two different issues. The first is clearly some operator “G” which I guess (when you compare it to shift symmetry) you intend to be reorganizing the supposed numerical labels such as the simple shift given in

[math] P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a,t) = P(x_1+a+\Delta a,x_2+a+\Delta a,\cdots,x_n+a +\Delta a,t) [/math].

Any redefinition of those numerical labels is acceptable but, unless you can produce some specific consequence of that redefinition, what significance do you think it should have. Remember, the concepts being represented are the concepts deduced from the whole collection of circumstances.

 

I'm not trying to say whether or not there pasts have anything to do with each other I am trying to say that for any expectations that one of them has it is possible to map them into the expectations of the other, since their past is clearly the boundary conditions of these expectations then the pasts must be mapped into each other by just such a mapping.

 

The pasts are, “the information on which the explanation is based”. In no way does that imply that the past upon which the expectations of one party is based have anything to do with the pasts upon which the other party is based. Sure, it is possible that they are the same but what can you conclude from that? That is, such a thing is always possible, but, in general, such a thing tells us nothing about any required constraints on the explanation. Shift symmetry is another issue.

 

Just what do you mean by interpret their solution I have always assumed that this meant that there existed an invertible mapping from one of their expectations to the others like what I just outlined.

 

What you seem to have missed is the fact that two entities may have reached exactly the same explanation based on exactly the same collection of information (that possibility can always exist) but it doesn't always lead to a specific conclusion about that explanation as does shift symmetry.

 

What I mean by "interpret their solution" is that any solution of any problem may be interpreted as a solution to my equations if it is indeed internally consistent.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick

[Bombadil]

You must accept the fact that they must exist in whatever universe you are considering because of the very simple fact that you are not all knowing: i.e., since you cannot prove they don't exist without knowing all possibilities, the very finite nature of your knowledge merely implies you haven't run across the consequences of their existence yet. It follows that what you are looking at may very well be a totally random universe: i.e., you can not dismiss the possibility.

 

But isn't it also true that there are an infinite number of different ways to explain whatever it is that is being explained and that as a result it is possible to explain anything that we run across without the use of such elements?

 

That is, shouldn't we also consider the consequences of such elements not existing even if we have encountered things that could be explained by the use of such elements?

 

No, I haven't “assumed” the existence of objects. What I have said is that, if a collection circumstances can be seen as not effected by the rest of the universe (essentially a rather common approximation) their behavior can be seen as an independent universe for reference purposes. From that perspective, any circumstance can be seen as “an object” with in infinitesimal time of survival.

 

I have to wonder is this a theorem of quantum-mechanics? If not then how can we know that it is not possible that there are situations that don't satisfy this condition? That is, how do we know that there can't exist a universe where there can be no objects even for a infinitesimal period of time?

 

It seems like a obvious idea that objects can exist and maybe you see an obvious way to prove it but to me I have a hard time seeing any reason that this should always be true, although it seems to be true for anything that we encounter from day to day, rather it seems to me like a mathematical theorem that must be proven for any function satisfying the fundamental equation, otherwise we seem to be ignoring a possibility just because we have not encountered it before. The problem is that looking at it in this way I see no obvious way to prove it and rather see it as something that could be easily taken for granted, my question is do we have any defense for taking it for granted other then that we have never observed something that it was not obviously true for.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be talking about two different issues. The first is clearly some operator “G” which I guess (when you compare it to shift symmetry) you intend to be reorganizing the supposed numerical labels such as the simple shift given in

[math] P(x_1+a,x_2+a,\cdots,x_n+a,t) = P(x_1+a+\Delta a,x_2+a+\Delta a,\cdots,x_n+a +\Delta a,t) [/math].

Any redefinition of those numerical labels is acceptable but, unless you can produce some specific consequence of that redefinition, what significance do you think it should have. Remember, the concepts being represented are the concepts deduced from the whole collection of circumstances.

 

What I am trying to say and what I have been thinking that you are referring to when you say an interpretation of an explanation is, a isomorphism from your expectations to a solution to the fundamental equation.

 

When I am suggesting that two explanations are equivalent I am saying that there is an isomorphism form one solution to the fundamental equation to a different solution to the fundamental equation. Would you not agree that any set of solutions to the fundamental equation that are all isomorphic to each other would form an equivalence class, if such sets exist. Finally can't we in some way look at shift symmetry as resulting in an isomorphism (the ability to shift all elements)?

 

Further more if we have such a mapping would you not agree that it must map the initial conditions of one explanation to the initial conditions of the other, where the initial conditions are the past.

 

What I mean by "interpret their solution" is that any solution of any problem may be interpreted as a solution to my equations if it is indeed internally consistent.

 

Can you be more specific, as the problem that I have is that you seem to be saying that what you mean by an interpretation is that an interpretation of a solution to a problem satisfies the fundamental equation. What I don't understand is what the relationship between a solution of any problem and a solution to the fundamental equation is. And I can't help but to think of it as some kind of mapping performed by some type of operator.

[Doctordick]

But isn't it also true that there are an infinite number of different ways to explain whatever it is that is being explained and that as a result it is possible to explain anything that we run across without the use of such elements?

 

“There are an infinite number of different ways to explain whatever it is that is being explained!” Can you prove that or is it no more than an opinion? It seems to me that you are confusing two very different issues. Proving that anything can be explained through the use of some collection of specific subtle concepts is in no way a proof that anything can be explained without the use of such elements. Sure, it could possibly be true, but you had better be able to prove it before you assert it as a truth!

 

That is, shouldn't we also consider the consequences of such elements not existing even if we have encountered things that could be explained by the use of such elements?

 

If no “objects” exist (that would be collections of information which can be considered as entities unto themselves; independent of the rest of the universe) then nothing can be considered independent of the rest of the universe. Don’t you realize that such an idea kind of puts you in a serious intellectual bind? That implies the only collection of information which can be considered constitutes the entire universe. That is an infinite set and can not be considered as no matter what you were aware of there still exists information you need before considering the situation. In essence that is an entity which can be represented only be a single point--that point represents “the universe”. Kin of leaves you with nothing to work with.

 

That is, how do we know that there can't exist a universe where there can be no objects even for a infinitesimal period of time?

 

We still have the fundamental object: “the universe”. The only explanation of that circumstance is, “what is” is “what is”! There is nothing left to think about. (Not exactly an infinite set of explanations!)

 

It seems like a obvious idea that objects can exist and maybe you see an obvious way to prove it but to me I have a hard time seeing any reason that this should always be true …

 

I suspect very strongly that you have missed the single most important issue underlying my work. You seem to think I am explaining what does and doesn’t exist. That is not at all what my presentation is about. My concern is “what constraints flow from the requirement of internal consistency and nothing else”. Essentially, from the perspective of my analysis, nothing need exist at all: every concept you hold in your head is a figment of your imagination. I concern myself only in the issue as to how these concepts must relate to one another.

 

What I am trying to say and what I have been thinking that you are referring to when you say an interpretation of an explanation is, a isomorphism from your expectations to a solution to the fundamental equation.

 

I am somewhat bothered by your use of the word “isomorphism” so I googled it and found “A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.” Essentially that is equivalent to asserting that a term in one language refers to the same concept as does some term in another language. That is the underlying issue in everything I present. That is why I began with the idea of a numerical label as essentially the name of an element.

 

Can you be more specific, as the problem that I have is that you seem to be saying that what you mean by an interpretation is that an interpretation of a solution to a problem satisfies the fundamental equation.

 

I have no concern with “the interpretation of a solution”. My concern is the interpretation of those numerical labels used to represent the required concepts. If the concepts used to express an explanation are so labeled, then the numerical representations of the circumstances [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] can be transformed into a time changing collection of points in a four dimensional space [math](x,y,z,\tau)[/math] where the expected probabilities (the expectations of that explanation) are solutions to my fundamental equation.

 

One thing I have to say here (that everyone seems to totally overlook) is that the explanation must be internally consistent and that the total collection of circumstances included must be sufficient to deduce the collection of relationships existing between those concepts: i.e., the language represented by those numerical labels.

 

And I can't help but to think of it as some kind of mapping performed by some type of operator.

 

That is because you insist on viewing the solution as expressed in some known language. That known language only exists after all the relationships between the relevant concepts has been established: i.e., the problem of “language” has already been solved.

 

The solution of my equation is the probability of the represented circumstance (exactly what I have defined to be “an explanation”). As I have said elsewhere, the only explanation guaranteed to be correct is the “what is” is “what is” explanation. Other possibilities arise only when specific limited issues are examined. For example, if I am going to only consider patterns of points in space which I can label “shoes” I will discover that the probability a shoe will have shoelaces will have a rational answer. What you should comprehend is that the answer is a result of my definition of “a shoe” and “shoelace”. They are related by definition; something which arose in my mind.

 

Have fun --Dick

Edited May 28, 2014 by Doctordick