Doctordick Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 In a post I read, someone referred to “Tractatus” which led me to google what I presumed was a name. The first reference was to Lugwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus where the introduction was by Bertrand Russell. Being a great fan of Russell, I read the introduction. In that introduction, I ran across the following assertion: The first requisite of an ideal language would be that there should be one name for every simple, and never the same name for two different simples. A name is a simple symbol in the sense that it has no parts which are themselves symbols. In a logically perfect language nothing that is not simple will have a simple symbol. The symbol for the whole will be a ``complex'', containing the symbols for the parts. That assertion is almost a direct quote of my attack. If there can be but one name for every simple, why not a numerical label [math]x_i[/math] where “x” is a numerical label for the “i”th element. And why not just use [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] for the symbol “complex” where the symbol for the parts is simply [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]? Bertrand Russell was a great mathematician. Why didn't he lay things out that way and examine the consequences? The whole rest of the introduction moves considerably off the mark with the uninterrupted and continued use of non-ideal language symbols, including new conceptual additions to the mish-mash like Sachverhalte, Tatsache, geometrical figure, proposition, Gedanke, manifold and many more, far beyond what I can be bothered to lay out here. Russell says, “Mr. Wittgenstein's explanation of his symbolism at this point is not quite fully given in the text.” He seems to miss the point that none of Mr. Wittgenstein's symbolism refers any “simples” at all and his introduction totally ignores the issue built into the idea of “simples”. And finally, Wittgenstein's proposed “picture” of the problem is far too simple to even begin to express the underlying issues which have to be understood here. And that is entirely due to his insistence on expressing everything in a “non-ideal” language; the very complaint upon which his work is supposedly based. And all this was published twenty years before I was born! Has no one thought about that book at all? "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do" Bertrand Russell(Oh, that is so true!) “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Socrates 399 BC (A quote from him at his trial; where he was condemned to death!) The essence of my work is a demonstration that, “understanding the universe is recognizing that there is no need to know anything at all”. All apparent knowledge is in fact, no more than a tautological construct. Our expectations are no more and no less than an inductive conclusion based on reflection of what we think we know. Have fun -- Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 If there can be but one name for every simple, why not a numerical label [math]x_i[/math] where “x” is a numerical label for the “i”th element. And why not just use [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] for the symbol “complex” where the symbol for the parts is simply [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]? How do you begin your symbol game? Why do you accept the Russell premise "if there can be but one name"...? Wittgenstein rejected such a premise. For Wittgenstein THERE CANNOT BE BUT ONE NAME FOR EVERY SIMPLE. Is the name you place into symbols a "simple" (xi) or a "complex" (x1, x2, ...xn)? Good Doctor, do you not understand that (1) Wittgenstein rejected what Russell had to say about what he wrote in Tractatus, and (2) that Wittgenstein rejected much of the Tractatus in his latter Philosophic Investigations. Wittgenstein would completely reject your simplistic approach to understand something as complex as human language as to use symbols xi for a "simple" and "(x1,x2,...xn) for a "complex". What is really sad is that you claim expert knowledge of Wittgenstein philosophy in your OP yet you never read directly anything he wrote, only the false interpretation of Russell. (this section edited] The essence of my work is a demonstration that' date=' “understanding the universe is recognizing that there is no need to know anything at all”.[/quote']A nonsense statement. To "understand" is defined as "to know or grasp the meaning of" (Webster New World Dictionary). To play your word game properly, you would need to substitute the word "comprehend" for "understand". For example, one can comprehend that "words" are used in a language foreign to them and at the same time not have any understanding whatsoever of the words used. Finally, given that the essence of your work is based on a false demonstration concerning the correct use of the word "understanding" it comes clear why you read Wittgenstein and walk away thinking you understand when in fact you do not even comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

lawcat Posted July 18, 2011 Report Share Posted July 18, 2011 All [] knowledge is in facts. Finally something I can agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Finally something I can agree with.Well, but can we really say "is in fact" ? If knowledge "is in" something, I would say that knowledge is in reason. In my way of thinking, knowledge is neither an attribute of facts in themselves, nor is it an attribute of consciousness itself. Thus I reject the philosophy that knowledge (apparent or not) is in facts. For me, knowledge is a dialectic. It is the mental evaluation (a coming to be) of the facts of reality first perceived by the evidence of the senses then differentiated and integrated into concepts by consciousness via rational thinking. Knowledge can be stored in memory, either as pure perception or conceptually. Thus while I agree that knowledge (e.g. I know I exist) must be discovered, not invented by the human mind, it will not be found in facts, but in process (rational thinking). Belief also is found in reason, (i.e., it is reasonable to believe) but not in the same way as knowledge. All expectation derives from belief, all understanding from knowledge. Science is the search for uncertain knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

lawcat Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Disagree. Here's how I see it. Let's start with: to think or know you must exist. And if you can not think you can not know. But knowledge is not in thinking. it's just an existential statement: You know because you think. Same existential statement can be phrased: I know because I think, I think because I breathe, therefore I know because I breathe. But knowledge can not be in breaths. You can think three things: truth, lie, indeterminable. Lies and Indeterminables are not knowledge. Only truth is knowledge. You can know the truth about the lie only if you know the truth. Truth is a statement consistent with facts. Only facts will lead you to truth or knowledge. Knowledge is in facts. Facts can be experiential or man made such as math or DD's equation--tautology. If there are no facts, then indeterminable is the only thing we can think, therefore knowledge can not exist. How do I know what I just wrote? From experiential facts and man made facts. How can you prove that I am lying? By proving that my man made facts are false (logic, language) or that my experiential facts (think three things) are false, not consistent with facts. Knowledge is in facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Disagree. Here's how I see it. Let's start with: to think or know you must exist.First, thank you for your time. So, I agree with the above, first "you must exist", then comes thinking and/or knowing. And if you can not think you can not know.Here I disagree' date=' and it comes down to how I define "to know". As I define knowledge, perception itself, without thinking about what is perceived, represents first level knowledge (mental grasp of fact(s) of reality leading to differentiation..e.g. not a thinking process). Second level knowledge is the use of reason (thinking) to integrate into concepts (either directly or indirectly) that which is perceived. What I claim is that not all parts of the mind "think", there are many other functions involved, such as regulation, memory, storage and process of perception, etc. So, when I say.."knowledge is in reason", at the same time I would hold as true that "knowledge is in perception". But, is it possible that reason as a process can be a type of fact ? I would say yes, so in this way I could agree with you (and DD). Let us see where my thinking leads. Consider the dictionary definitions (Webster New World) of "fact", it has two aspects: it is either (1) a "thing", "state of a thing", or (2) "a statement", "act", "deed". So, an ice cube is a thing and it can have a state called cold and that these are facts. But, do we say that in these facts of the ice cube or cold is knowledge ? Do we say the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in ice cube know each other ? When we consider the alternative definition of a fact as a process (statement, act, deed) we can say that knowledge is in the process of the fact, in the same way we can say knowledge is within the process of reason. Perhaps then better to say that "knowledge is in process". Thus, knowledge is in fact [as process, but not as thing'] AND knowledge is in reason [as process and as thing]. This represents an important and subtle difference between the two aspects of knowledge and its relationship to fact and reason...well, this is my world view, I encourage disagreement and dialog. Facts can be experiential or man made such as math or DD's equation--tautology. If there are no facts, then indeterminable is the only thing we can think, therefore knowledge can not exist.. I disagree, and it comes to how I define a fact. For me, a fact must be a confirmed thing or a confirmed statement, so I expand on the above dictionary definitions. For it to be a fact that X is true, one must make numerous observations or measurements on X. However, the process of making a truth statement must begin with the first observation of X, and since by definition this event has no basis in fact, yet is a true observation, one can have knowledge of it. Thus, knowledge is possible without fact (again, see above my definition of first level knowledge via perception). I know because I think, I think because I breathe, therefore I know because I breathe. But knowledge can not be in breaths.Your argument is A (a process) is in B (a process), B is in C (a process), therefore A (a process) is in C (a process), a truth statement. Of course knowledge of something (as process) can be in another process (such as breathing). You are outside in winter with temperature less than 0 degree F, with each breath (a process) is knowledge (a process) of the concept "cold" as provided to mind by the nerves of the lung tissue (a fact). You can think three things: truth, lie, indeterminable. Lies and Indeterminables are not knowledge. Only truth is knowledge. You can know the truth about the lie only if you know the truth. Truth is a statement consistent with facts. Only facts will lead you to truth or knowledge. Knowledge is in facts. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. You state that "truth is a statement", thus truth (or knowledge) is a mental process of making a truth statement, which requires use of reason. Facts lead to truth or knowledge only via the use of reason. Thus, the truth of knowledge of facts is as you say "in the statement", e.g., in the use of reason. How do I know what I just wrote? From experiential facts and man made facts.There are only two ways to know something, from inside the thing and from outside the thing. Thus, you know what you just wrote from inside the action of the writing, and I and others know what you just wrote from outside this process, first via visual perception, then via reason. In both cases the knowledge is from the process, not from fact. How can you prove that I am lying? By proving that my man made facts are false (logic, language) or that my experiential facts (think three things) are false, not consistent with facts.Again, proof and disproof are mental processes, they are procedures for testing explanations. Consider..if you believe that it is raining on your driveway outside your house, and you walk outside and observe the sun shining and dry pavement, you have disproved a false belief from use of reasoning [e.g., you reasoned that you needed to walk outside to test the belief). The knowledge of the circumstance is in the use of reason, not in facts that were used as part of the reasoning process. See also that, based on my definition of fact, knowledge was obtained in the circumstance without any facts at all, given that no recurrent observations were required to logically prove or disprove the belief concerning rain event outside the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted July 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Hi lawcat, I may have misjudged you. Sometimes communications are significantly flawed. In the past I had pretty well put you in the same category as I put Rade and your first comment All [] knowledge is in facts.Finally something I can agree with.would not have altered my view. I would have presumed you misinterpreted the line that was taken from; (which I think it was anyway), but your further post gave me pause to think that perhaps you had some common sense. You can think three things: truth, lie, indeterminable. Lies and Indeterminables are not knowledge. Only truth is knowledge. You can know the truth about the lie only if you know the truth.That is one of the most straight forward classifications I can imagine. That “indeterminable” is a critical classification. If you go through Gödel's incompleteness theorem carefully, you will notice that he uses two categories, “true” and “false”. He omits the third category which I commonly refer to as “meaningless” (quite analogous to your category of “indeterminable”). If every statement must be categorized as “true” or “false”, no fault can be found in his proof; however, if one adds the category “indeterminable” (or “meaningless”) the proof essentially ignores some important possibilities and, in my mind anyway, is not really a valid proof. But I will leave that argument to others. The fact that you included the issue impressed me. Truth is a statement consistent with facts. Only facts will lead you to truth or knowledge. Knowledge is in facts. Facts can be experiential or man made such as math or DD's equation--tautology. If there are no facts, then indeterminable is the only thing we can think, therefore knowledge can not exist. How do I know what I just wrote? From experiential facts and man made facts. How can you prove that I am lying? By proving that my man made facts are false (logic, language) or that my experiential facts (think three things) are false, not consistent with facts. Knowledge is in facts.In essence that is a totally logical assertion. The most significant assertion is your claim as to the answer to the question, “How can you prove that I am lying?” I agree with your assertion that there are only two possibilities: either the man made facts are false (logic and/or language) or the experimental facts are false: i.e., the facts are not internally consistent (I think that is what you mean when you say “not consistent with facts” which is sort of recursive the way you put it). At any rate, I agree with you wholeheartedly. (If you think I am misinterpreting you, let me know.) At any rate, my fundamental equation is a totally tautological construct (essentially a man made fact). I deduced that equation when I was a mere graduate student and I took it as being a rather useless “man made fact” for something like ten years. But then I discovered that, with a few simple assumptions (being exactly the common assumptions behind Schrödinger's equation) his equation was a valid approximation to mine. That led to a mathematical definition of momentum and energy which further led to Dirac's equation and that connection defined Maxwell's equations as an approximation to my equation. Not only did Maxwell's equations (under the proper approximations) become an approximate solution to my equation but, relaxing a few of those approximations yielded nuclear forces (both the strong and the weak as approximate solutions to my equation. Finally, both the relationships expected for special and general relativity (together with some minor corrections) also became inevitable approximate solutions to my equation. That is when I began to refer to it as a “fundamental” equation. The important issue here is that I have been able to find nothing from the experimental facts of modern science which can not be seen as approximate solutions to my equation. If that observation is correct (and I have seen no evidence of it being false) then that category “experimental facts” begins to look highly suspect. Could it be that what we see as “experimental facts” are nothing more than convenient mental constructs (man made facts) required by the definition of “an explanation”. And everyone argues with me by bringing up “explanations” which (in their minds) are inconsistent with my equation. My position is that if those explanations are inconsistent with my equation then those self same explanations are inconsistent with all the explanations of modern physics. Currently you give me the impression that you are close to understanding what I am talking about. If that is indeed the case, let me know. Have fun -- Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

lawcat Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Schrodinger. If your equation is consistent with Schrodinger then it is true, of course. But here, considering man made world of math and not physical implications, it is not enough that it resembles Schrodinger. You have to be able to go exactly from Schrodinger general case to your equation mathematically. If that is not the case, then Schrodinger has nothing to do with your equation. Fundamental. For you equation to be fundamental, Schrodinger's general must be a specific solution to your equation. Even then, it is only proven fundamental to that which Schrodinger already applies, and not more which you claim. This I call anachronism. Approximate. Approximate only has meaning in metric, in physical, in the world of experience. To call Schrodinger's equation approximate solution to yours, we must have a metric to test your equation in experience to prove that Schrodinger is approximate. Otherwise, in the world of definitions, approximate is false. Yet you claim that it is approximate without testing. Metric. Metric is indispensable for physical testing. Yet you deny metric because your equation is tautology--it must be true. You deny experience, but claim equation must apply to experience. This I call magic. Frustration. I readily give you that Your equation and Schrodinger are mathematically consistent. Your frustration is that I am unwilling to go through math of proof between your equation and Schrodinger, unwilling to think. Some people would rather die than think. That may be true, I have not faced the choice. But that is beyond my objection to your explanation. I give you Schrodinger. Objection. I do not agree with your underlying definitions. I do not agree with your rejection of metric while claiming application beyond Schrodinger. My conclusion. In as much as Schrodinger describes changing of a state, a process, you are correct that you equation describes a process given that I admit that your equation is consistent with Schrodinger. I would call that process decision-making process with few changes in definitions, because an explanation is a state, a statement, a result of the process of considering circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 DD, concerning your comment to Lawcat that ...the third category which I commonly refer to as “meaningless” (quite analogous to your category of “indeterminable”). I would name the third "unknowable". The unknowable is the claim that X is either true or false, but it is impossible for any human to know which one, using evidence of the senses and/or rational thinking. In this way the unknowable also both indeterminable and meaningless, it cannot be determined to be either true or false and it has no meaning (i.e., it cannot be put into the mind to be put through a truth filter of rational thinking. I would also add a forth category, the "the arbitrary or capricious". Both are based on personal preference or whim. To be arbitrary or capricious is worse than being false or unknowable. The false has a logical association with the facts of reality, it is a negative association between reality and reason, thus indicating process error. The arbitrary claims that by definition there is no association between reality and reason (i.e., reality is what I claim reality is and no thinking allowed), thus rejecting reason as a process used to determine what is true and what is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Could it be that what we see as “experimental facts” are nothing more than convenient mental constructs (man made facts) required by the definition of “an explanation”.Well, how about we say VERY CONVENIENT constructs vis-a-vis the basis of all technology ! They are convenient because experimental facts by definition are constraints, and where a constraint exists, advantage can be taken of it, I'm sure you will agree. Also, what "more" (when you say facts are nothing more) do you wish experimental facts to be ? Concerning your comment about (man made facts). Are you claiming there are (non man made facts) ? If yes, please give one example. If not, then just say "facts" and remove the useless words "man made". ==== Here is another format for you to use to help get across your point: Experiment facts are mental constructs required by my definition of an explanation. So, for example, suppose you take 100 measures on the magnetic moment of the helium-3 isotope and record each in a table. Combined the 100 numbers in the table represent mental constructs (that is, they map the magnetic moments of 100 real helium-3 isotopes). That the 100 numbers in the table may be any numbers mentally constructed, but they must be some number dictated by the reality of the 100 helium-3 isotopes and the error present in all measurement of anything, is required by your definition of an explanation. Here we see one tautological (not meaningless) application of your definition of explanation. == And, concerning "non-experimental facts", are you saying they are mental constructs not required by your definition of an explanation ? Would seem to be true given that there exists a large set of facts outside any experiment that have nothing at all to do with development of a procedure to generate expectations for any circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted July 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 Well lawcat, you disappoint me again; however, I will try to show you where your logic is erroneous; something I will no longer attempt with Rade as he has made it far too clear that he is not about to think about anything. Please read my response carefully and make a serious consideration of my complaints on your last post. I know Rade will not consider such a path and if you seriously refuse to think about my comments, you are just joining him as another web troll. Schrodinger. If your equation is consistent with Schrodinger then it is true, of course.That is a false statement as it presumes Schrodinger is correct; something one can not prove (that is why quantum mechanics is called “a theory”): i.e., it can not be proved that an experiment will never ever arise, somewhere in the future, which will invalidate Schrodinger's results. My equation is true by construct: i.e., it is a tautology; essentially no more than a restatement of the definitions I have laid out. That brings up another statement that has utterly no place in this discussion. Objection. I do not agree with your underlying definitions. Taken at face value, you are saying that, when I use the definition “an explanation is a method for developing expectations”, you don't believe that is what I mean. Of course, if you don't believe I mean that when I use the word “explanation” then you clearly do not know what I am talking about as I am talking about what follows from that definition. But that is not what I think you mean. I could be wrong, but I think you mean that you would not use that definition to describe what you have in mind when you consider the category “an explanation”. I have no problem with that at all as I seriously do not know what you mean when you use the word: i.e., you have never made your definition clear to me. (I am also not very interested in your definition as you have not even suggested that any valuable tautologies, “man made truths” or logical relationships follow from it.) Certainly if you insist on using your definition (whatever it happens to be) and, if it is indeed different from mine, you cannot deduce my equation so there is no use at all in our discussing the issue. In fact, I do not have any idea as to what you think you can deduce from your definition as you have never presented any logic bearing on that issue; on the other hand, neither have you given me any reason to think that what you call “an explanation” does not fall under my definition. That is to say, all my definition requires of an explanation is that knowing the explanation is sufficient to defining one's expectations. That is quite an open issue. To assert that my tautology is invalid with regard to your definition of an explanation is to assert that your concept of an explanation does not include yielding expectations and, personally, I can not conceive of an explanation which yields no expectations: i.e., differentiates between what is or is not possible if the explanation is indeed valid. You have to be able to go exactly from Schrodinger general case to your equation mathematically. If that is not the case, then Schrodinger has nothing to do with your equation.You have the issue exactly backwards. One can not use Schrödinger's equation as a beginning point without presuming it is valid. But one can go the other way; if indeed my equation is valid (which it is if it indeed a tautological consequence of my definition) and Schrödinger's wave mechanics is an approximate solution then it follows that Schrödinger's wave mechanics is approximately true. And that brings up another of your comments: Approximate. Approximate only has meaning in metric, in physical, in the world of experience. To call Schrodinger's equation approximate solution to yours, we must have a metric to test your equation in experience to prove that Schrodinger is approximate. Otherwise, in the world of definitions, approximate is false. Yet you claim that it is approximate without testing.You are presuming a very limited meaning to the word “approximate” and, due to that limited meaning are totally misinterpreting my intended use of the term. Check out the meaning given in Wikionary. The number one entry is, approaching; proximate; nearly resembling. In my Webster's Dictionary it is defined: 1. near in position; close together. 2. much like; resembling. 3. more or less correct or exact.Which I think can be seen as approximately the same. :lol: When I say, “Schrödinger's equation is an approximation” of my equation I am specifically referring to “exactly the common assumptions behind Schrödinger's equation”. The first approximation (absolutely necessary to obtain Schrödinger's equation) is to presume that the most of the rest of the universe can be ignored: i.e., the interactions can be reduced to what is essentially a one body problem. A "general" solution to three body problem has never been found and any two body problem may be reduced to a one body problem. That is what makes “field theory” so important. In many cases it is possible to come up with a “field” which will makes a decent approximation to a large collection of interactions (but only when the one body does not seriously disturb that “field”). If you could follow my deduction of Schrödinger's equation, you would find that I make exactly those same approximations in order to get rid of the many-body nature of my equation which (as it stands, may be logically sound is, nevertheless beyond general solution) is not directly solvable (that is why I thought of it as pretty useless for almost ten years). During that period, I showed that equation to a number of “competent” physics professors in an attempt to find a way of obtaining some approximate solution. None of them were able to think of an attack which might yield a useful way of even discussing the nature of possible solutions. That is the major reason I never tried to publish; the equation appeared to be a rather useless deduction. Fundamental. For you equation to be fundamental, Schrodinger's general must be a specific solution to your equation. ... This I call anachronism.That complaint makes no sense at all. Again, from Wikionary; fundamental, a leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part, as, the fundamentals of linear algebra. If Schrödinger's equation is an approximate solution to my equation (approximate by virtue of my use of the term above), then Schrödinger's equation can not be the basis of my equation; however, mine could be the basis of his (that relationship would make mine more fundamental than his). If you were to study physics, you would find that there exist whole books concerned with the fact that Newtonian physics is an approximation to quantum mechanics: i.e., that approximation which ignores all the wave aspects and presumes one is only interested in objects (which consist of large numbers of quantum entities in an essentially stable structure) then quantum mechanics yields essentially the same answers as Newtonian physics. The requirement that such a thing be true is often referred to as an equivalence principal. If quantum mechanics does not provide answers equivalent to Newtonian mechanics (for the circumstances where Newtonian mechanics is valid) then it has to be wrong because these situations have been carefully examined. Does that make Newtonian mechanics more fundamental than quantum mechanics? Of course not; quantum mechanics is more fundamental because it explains more circumstances than does Newtonian mechanics while (at the same time) fully explaining Newtonian mechanics. Your reference presuming time of discovery plays a role here would suggest that the theory that the world consists of “fire, earth, air and water” is fundamental to modern physics; a total misrepresentation of the meaning of “fundamental”. Of course you are a philosopher and not a scientist. Even then, it is only proven fundamental to that which Schrodinger already applies, and not more which you claim.Again, you have things totally backwards. Essentially I have shown that Schrödinger's equation (and thus wave mechanics and Newtonian physics) can be deduced from my equation. In my deduction of Dirac's equation (again deduced via exactly the same approximations used by modern physics) from my equation leads directly to a path which deduces Maxwell's equations. But what is even more impressive is the fact when I remove one of those approximations I made (that is, essentially going back to aspects of my equation not expressed in Maxwell's equations) I obtain a alteration in Maxwell's equations which yield a field having exactly the same characteristics as the nuclear force fields. Not only that but the symmetries involved suggest two other forces directly due to differential characteristics over space of effects of both the electromagnetic fields and the strong nuclear fields (implied by my equation and not implied by standard modern physics). Those two adjustments essentially can be seen as two new (quite weak) forces which bear an uncanny resemblance to gravity and the nuclear weak force. Something very much like gravity arises as an inverse “r” force derived from more accurate analysis of what are normally attributed to electromagnetic effects. Likewise, the same corrections to the strong nuclear fields yield a force quite like the nuclear weak force, including the parity violations attributed to the weak force. And, finally, my equation predicts exactly the same phenomena attributed to special relativity and direct analysis of the inverse “r” force mentioned above yields almost exactly the general relativistic consequences of Einstein's theory of general relativity. One new term shows up which I proved thirty years ago was so small that it couldn't be measured. The consequence would be a slight variation in the observed radial acceleration of an object due to gravity. I never expected to see any conformation of that term but, as I look at it today, it appears to be exactly what is needed to explain what is currently referred to as “dark matter”. There is also strong evidence that the inflation effects observed are a direct consequence of the necessity of being a solution to my equation. Any one of these results would be interesting but to see all of them arising from a single simple equation is another ball of wax. Unless I have made an error, all of these areas of theoretical physics are actually no more than the consequences of my equation being correct: i.e., my equation is fundamental to all these areas of physics. Very much analogous to what happened when Maxwell proposed his equation as standing behind Coulomb's law of charges, Ampère's law of currents, Gauss's law of magnetism and Faraday's law of induction. Prior to Maxwell these were all thought of as different issues. One major difference between Maxwell and me is that Maxwell's idea was a “theory” an idea he got by looking at the relationships the others had discovered. My equation is not a theory; it is a pure deduction from my definition of an explanation and is thus a tautology, not a theory. The implications are unavoidable: modern physics appears to be a tautological construct just as the religious arguments of the dark ages were eventually shown to be a tautological construct. Metric. Metric is indispensable for physical testing. Yet you deny metric because your equation is tautology--it must be true. You deny experience, but claim equation must apply to experience. This I call magic.The word “metric” has many meanings and you certainly don't make it clear as to what meaning you intend. I suspect you mean established units of measure. What you are missing is that those references are all taken from what you call the universe. You want to treat them as separate from the universe when they are actually a statement about relationships between different collections of information obtained from that universe. If you were able to go through my proof you could see exactly how those standard measurements arise from solutions to my equation. Your frustration is that I am unwilling to go through math of proof between your equation and Schrodinger, unwilling to think.Not really; I suspect you don't have the mathematics competence to go through my deductions. Some people would rather die than think. That may be true, I have not faced the choice. But that is beyond my objection to your explanation.You have not “faced” the choice? Do you mean that you would have to be under the threat of death before you would even consider thinking? I don't think you really meant to say that. But if your objection to my explanation was achieved without thinking then I guess I have to put you in the same camp with Rade. :lol: Please, give me just a little reason to place you as mentally superior to Rade. Have fun -- Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

lawcat Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 That is a false statement as it presumes Schrodinger is correct; something one can not prove (that is why quantum mechanics is called “a theory”): i.e., it can not be proved that an experiment will never ever arise, somewhere in the future, which will invalidate Schrodinger's results. My equation is true by construct: i.e., it is a tautology; essentially no more than a restatement of the definitions I have laid out. That brings up another statement that has utterly no place in this discussion. I meant that If your equation is consistent with Schrodinger by tautology, then it is consistent with every tautology Schrodinger is consistent with, and I think we can agree on that. But that is not what I think you mean . . . I think you mean that you would not use that definition to describe what you have in mind . . . you cannot deduce my equation so there is no use at all in our discussing the issue. I agree. To assert that my tautology is invalid with regard to your definition of an explanation is to assert that your concept of an explanation does not include yielding expectations and, personally, I can not conceive of an explanation which yields no expectations: i.e., differentiates between what is or is not possible if the explanation is indeed valid. I agree. I think I was wrong and you are right, and that's because my objection has no impact on the equation. My objection is semantics. But I still like my semantics better than yours :-). You have the issue exactly backwards. One can not use Schrödinger's equation as a beginning point without presuming it is valid. But one can go the other way; if indeed my equation is valid (which it is if it indeed a tautological consequence of my definition) and Schrödinger's wave mechanics is an approximate solution then it follows that Schrödinger's wave mechanics is approximately true. I think now you are involved in semantics because your reply does not impact my point/ But I agree with you that one "should" be able to get to Schrodinger from yours mathematically. Wheteher that is the case is a matter of proof which I have not done but you have. And I've already said I take that at face value. Which I think can be seen as approximately the same. :lol: When I say, “Schrödinger's equation is an approximation” of my equation I am specifically referring to “exactly the common assumptions behind Schrödinger's equation”. OK, but I would advise against that. For philosophical, or tautological consistency, I would use sufficiently consistent and explain where it is inconsistent, and in algebraic terms I would use "specific solution." That complaint makes no sense at all. Again, from Wikionary; fundamental, a leading or primary principle, rule, law, or article, which serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part, as, the fundamentals of linear algebra.I disagree with your reliance on that definition. Fundamental here means basic, can not be derived from any other. Any one of these results would be interesting but to see all of them arising from a single simple equation is another ball of wax. Unless I have made an error, all of these areas of theoretical physics are actually no more than the consequences of my equation being correct: Wow. Math proof required. You should publish it in a booklet. I suspect you mean established units of measure. Yes. If you were able to go through my proof you could see exactly how those standard measurements arise from solutions to my equation. I am not surprised based on your definitions, which describe decision-making, we had to make a decision to call what was measured and we called it a meter. A mathematical equation to describe that process is quite unnecessary and pure magic. You are fudging results to fit your definitions. Not really; I suspect you don't have the mathematics competence to go through my deductions. maybe, maybe not. I'd rather see your math then your writing. Your writing takes away from the math proofs. Do you mean that you would have to be under the threat of death before you would even consider thinking? I meant, I chose not to look at the math of your equation, but if I had a gun to my face I may do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted July 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 For a while, I debated even answering this post. I was hoping for more from you but I will give you another opportunity to think about things a little. I meant that If your equation is consistent with Schrodinger by tautology, then it is consistent with every tautology Schrodinger is consistent with, and I think we can agree on that.Think about what you are saying! (If you don't, your posts are essentially equivalent to Rade's.) A tautology is (by definition) no more than a restatement of information in different terms: i.e., nothing, not embedded in the original, is put forth. In essence, any proof is a tautology as, in reality, it is nothing more than a restatement of whatever was asserted in the relevant axioms. If my equation was equivalent to Schrödinger “by tautology” (which, by the way, it certainly is not) it would be a restatement of the information embedded in Schrödinger's equation. If that were the case, why bother; why not just use Schrödinger's equation as nothing is gained by using the tautology. The only advantage to a tautology (or a proof) is that there are, on occasion, things which are embedded in some statements which are not entirely obvious. (You might read my post on defining “rational discussion”; Rade clearly never comprehended why I took the trouble to write that post.) There are both power and weakness in what “I” refer to as “logical thought” and what I refer to as "squirrel thought" (many idiots presume I was presenting some theory about how squirrels think; I presume you have enough brains to comprehend that I am not saying anything about squirrels. I am merely giving a name to the mode of thought I am talking about.) The issue is that the power of a tautology (logical thought) is, "that which is concluded is as correct as are the presumed facts" (the axioms). The weakness of a tautology is that it is limited to a finite number of steps (at best no more than a very large number of pages of analytical steps): i.e., only a very limited amount of information can be analyzed with logic. What I call "squirrel thought" (essentially going with what your gut says is valid) has the power of being able to work with vast quantities of information; however, its weakness is the fact that you cannot prove those conclusions are correct: i.e., the possibility of error can not be eliminated (a problem proper logic does not have). Getting back to the power of tautology, people often assume that, if you are talking about a tautology, the relationships you are talking about are obvious. That is a very dangerous and erroneous presumption (I would say a direct result of “squirrel thinking”). All proofs are essentially tautological constructs and anyone who understands the nature of mathematics knows there exist a great number of “proofs” which are by no means obvious. This issue is the whole purpose of that post: i.e., logical analysis, by itself, simply can not be used to understand anything which is decently complex. That is why I bring up the issue of “rational thought”. "Rational" simply cannot be defined as “logical”. Such a definition would make “rational thought” essentially a useless category. If you want to understand anything I am bringing up, you need to take the issues above seriously. If you don't, you are wasting both our time. A major problem with making a tautological presentation is that, when people comprehend that the information is embedded in the axioms (what they have presumed is true), ignorant people think the results tell them something which is beyond what is embedded in the axioms. Not that they are being “irrational” but rather that they are going with their “gut feelings”; a very common reasoning mistake made by many people: i.e., thinking they are being logical when they are actually simply proceeding with common "squirrel thought". If you were to understand my deductions in detail, you would comprehend that equation I deduce is tautologically equivalent to: "the function [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] yields the expectations for the circumstance referred to in the representation [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)"[/math]. That representation being defined as merely numerical labels of the necessary concepts. In other words, that equation contains absolutely nothing beyond what is contained in the definition of [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] just given. My objection is semantics. But I still like my semantics better than yours :-).Semantics comes from Greek as the study of meaning. There is no semantics in my presentation. That is the sole purpose of my representing circumstances via the notation: [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math]. All the semantics is embedded whatever is being labeled by those indices. I have left the semantics as a totally open and unconstrained issue. Another issue which seems to be beyond Rade's comprehension and which I had some hope was not beyond yours. In discussing their “counter examples”, Rade and others always want to work with a language consisting of four or five symbols (supposedly representing everything they want to explain) but then, in their explanations, they bring in tons and tons of relationships not represented by that collection of symbols as if no other “semantic relationships” exist in the universe of their supposed counter example. That is what Anssi and I are always bitching about when we say they are working from a perspective constrained by their world view. Their world view IS the presumption of millions upon millions of semantic relationships not represented in the tiny collection of symbols. They want to use the constraints implied by those millions of relationships but don't want to include them in their representation. And you too, you want specific examples! Any worthwhile specific example would include so many indices that you couldn't write them down in a life time. You need to be able to use your head to figure out where the procedures I talk about lead. In essence, I am using logic and you want a "squirrel thought" map of where it goes. That isn't going to happen! This isn't an insight one achieves with "gut instinct" but it is correct nonetheless. ... explain where it is inconsistent, and in algebraic terms I would use "specific solution."I did! It apparently just went totally over your head. Your being a philosopher and not a mathematician, I suspect you just saw the comparison as unintelligible. My deduced equation is: [math]\left\{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j}\beta_{ij}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i - \tau_j) \right\}\vec{\Psi} = K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}.[/math] Schrödinger's equation is: [math]\left\{-\left(\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\right)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+ V(x)\right\}\vec{\phi}(x,t)=i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\phi}(x,t)[/math] It is “inconsistent" to assert that those two equations are the same. There are so many differences that I could use an entire post to point them out. And what kind of a specific solution to what? No general solution to my equation is possible and general solutions to Schrödinger's equation only exist for a finite number of specific cases. There are cases solvable in Dirac's notation which can not be represented in Schrödinger's that is why "wave mechanics" is now considered somewhat behind the times! Schrödinger takes Heisenberg's constant , mass, momentum, V(x) and “t” as known physical quantities. You should notice that my equation includes no known physical quantities (those numbers are just indices of elements: the relevant concepts). The fact that I can make it look like his equation by simple use of approximations common to modern physics. And I mean here; "one",the act of neglecting the effects of other entities in the universe of circumstances and "two", making certain specific definitions of algebraic terms present in any valid explanation of anything: i.e., defining mass, momentum and energy as certain algebraic terms (not numbers), “t” as a simple ordering parameter on the known information and finally V(x) as the energy contribution of the remainder of the universe. What is really funny is the fact that the value of Heisenberg's constant has no impact at all. All I have to do is multiply my equation through by that constant and it ends up exactly where it is in Schrödinger's equation. That brings up a funny story. Back when I was a graduate student, I read a book by George Gamow about a character “Mr. Tompkins”. There were other weird physics places “Mr. Tompkins” visited but the tiger hunt in quantum land was interesting. It presumed a place where Heisenberg's constant was a large number. There were major problems with Gamow's presentation (I was studying quantum at the time) and I was interested in what the world would really look like if it were a large number (I could show Gamow's picture was WRONG). The problem was I couldn't find a place to start; everything seemed to be dependent on that constant. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Heisenberg's constant was circularly defined; every term in any represented phenomena had that constant in its definition somewhere. But, back to your complaints: I disagree with your reliance on that definition. Fundamental here means basic, can not be derived from any other.I am not “relying” on that definition; I am saying my equation is fundamental in that it cannot be derived from anything except definition of an explanation itself and requiring definition does not remove something from being basic; you should have the intellect to realize that the word “basic” brings up the question “basic to what?” My equation is basic to explaining anything and that is about as basic as you can get! You should publish it in a booklet.And why should I do that? I am between a very large rock and an extremely hard place when it comes to publishing. No competent person will ever read such a publication. The very large rock is the scientific academy who earns their living and their right to that living by their claims that they understand the universe around them. None of them is prepared to recognize that their world view constitutes a tautology! After all, that is the crux of the big fight between scientists and religionists. Modern science is based on the idea that the religious explanations of the world are tautologies; do you think they are about to admit what they believe is based on a tautology? Even after a thousand years, the religionists still won't admit that their religious arguments are tautologies. Scientists won't even begin to look at what I have done; the idea that it might be true scares them to death. (That is why Qfwfq goes to such pains to imply that I am saying something else.) Oh yes; the hard place is the overwhelming ignorance of the common man. Most find it very difficult to comprehend what I am saying because they simply don't have the mathematical/logical skill to follow my deductions. Since the experts (who would clearly be able follow it) assert I couldn't possibly be correct, the ignorant don't want to be seen as fools by considering the possibility I am right. If I did published, no one would be moved by it; no one would read it. Anssi is the only person I have ever met who shows a little interest in trying to follow my work and that is for one very simple reason. He had asked himself the same question which bothered me: i.e., how the devil does one convert total ignorance of everything into a world view which appears to be an accurate reflection of reality. He is the only person who comprehends that I have actually discovered the answer to that question. I am not surprised based on your definitions, which describe decision-making, we had to make a decision to call what was measured and we called it a meter. Now that is a rather illogical assertion (something you clearly reach via what I call common “squirrel thought”). You have totally omitted, even bringing up, a number of required steps. You have to first define (in detail) “what was measured” (something which reflects some solution to some specific part of my equation), “how it was measured” (a procedure which is accomplished via some series of circumstances which are essentially solutions to some specific other part of my equation) and how “what it was measured with” was defined (which must be a simultaneous solution to another specific part of my equation). You clearly have not even considered such things. Essentially, you have presumed your world view is correct by presuming a vast quantity of semantic relationships not even mentioned in your example! Back to Anssi and my complaint: everyone wants to work under the assumption their world view is correct. How can you work from there if you are trying to understand how it is possible to create such a world view when absolutely nothing about the universe is defined. Essentially, your problem is that you can not even comprehend working with an undefined universe: i.e., working under the assumption that your world view is erroneous is simply beyond your comprehension. A mathematical equation to describe that process is quite unnecessary and pure magic. You are fudging results to fit your definitions.Exactly as I just said; you already have a world view which explains such things and you have no need to explain how that was accomplished. It must be that God gave it to you full blown from birth! Just exactly who is it who is talking about "magic" here? :D I meant, I chose not to look at the math of your equation, but if I had a gun to my face I may do it.Well, you can be sure I will not put a gun to your face and if that is what it would take to get you to think, don't bother answering this post. Have fun -- Dick Knowledge is PowerAnd the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Dear DD. In the future, please do not refer to my name in your posts. In case you have not noticed, your insults to me build as a log equation. In this thread alone I list below the direct insults to me. If you cannot support your philosophy without insult to me, imo, you have no reason to be allowed to post on this forum: 1. In the past I had pretty well put you in the same category as I put Rade and your first comment 2. I will try to show you where your logic is erroneous; something I will no longer attempt with Rade as he has made it far too clear that he is not about to think about anything.3. I know Rade will not consider such a path and if you seriously refuse to think about my comments, you are just joining him as another web troll.4. But if your objection to my explanation was achieved without thinking then I guess I have to put you in the same camp with Rade. :lol:5. Think about what you are saying! (If you don't, your posts are essentially equivalent to Rade's.)6. Rade clearly never comprehended why I took the trouble to write that post.) 7. Another issue which seems to be beyond Rade's comprehension 8. Rade and others always want to work with a language consisting of four or five symbols (supposedly representing everything they want to explain)9. Please, give me just a little reason to place you as mentally superior to Rade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Hi Lawcat. It caught my attention that you criticized DD's use of the word "Fundamental" [Equation], and your criticism made me wonder what is that you think he means by "Fundamental". Your comment implies you think you understand what he means, so could you just explain in your own words what is his equation "fundamental to", and what does it represent? -Anssi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

AnssiH Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Anssi is the only person I have ever met who shows a little interest in trying to follow my work and that is for one very simple reason. He had asked himself the same question which bothered me: i.e., how the devil does one convert total ignorance of everything into a world view which appears to be an accurate reflection of reality. He is the only person who comprehends that I have actually discovered the answer to that question. And btw, for what it's worth, armed with understanding what DD actually means by his arguments, it is pretty obvious to me that his argument is valid. What I mean by that is, the connection between the universal symmetries and the modern physics definitions is fairly straightforward and very hard to deny. Of course there are details in the argument that require thought and can contain hidden assumptions, and some thought is required in understanding what that connection means (with all the steps that were performed), but you can't even begin to analyze those details without first understanding what his argument even is. So far most people have concerned themselves with arguing about whether or not they happen to agree with DD's definitions, and I'm sad to see that it is getting more and more ridiculous. It is clear that these objections reflect poor understanding of what DD means; they reflect a misconception that his definitions are meant as something more than arbitrary communication choices. The fact is that his definitions are there for the purpose of communicating logical relationships. Not for the purpose of arguing what sort of definitions are "true". That also means, that the objections where you guys simply don't agree with his [explicitly stated] definitions are entirely meaningless. Do you understand, that anyone could make the same objection towards any argument about anything; you are really just saying that you don't want to use the words or concepts that the author is using to communicate something. You guys are literally picking up individual words now, and offering your own definitions instead. If you can use your own definitions to display the same relationships that DD is displaying, go ahead and do so. If you can't, then why are you arguing with his definitions? Should we also start a thread about what the meaning of "is" is? Look guys, it is actually quite common that people argue about various issues without ever really understanding each others, because they don't share the terminology. The problem is that they keep assuming that the different parties intuitively understands the same words the same way, and it is often very difficult to uncover what the actual difference is. A lot of the time that difference never really surfaces itself. And it just so happens that that issue is a central characteristic of what DD is analyzing. He is quite explicit about the existence of that problem, and he has also put in a lot of effort in the attempt to define his meanings. I do think he is quite right in criticizing your objections when you make an objection that is clearly written in completely different language. Your argument comes off as completely thoughtless when read in the language DD established. If you have something meaningful to say, it might otherwise be fine to use your language, except that you have also made it very clear that you started objecting before even establishing understanding as to what DD is trying to say. Instead you have just assumed your intuition tells you what DD means, and thus you read his arguments as something ridiculous, and you feel the urge to complain about something that only exists in your own interpretation. I'm sorry but it is still the responsibility of the reader to adopt the definitions of the author, not the responsibility of the author to write a different paper for each reader. Which brings me to my last point;For a while, I debated even answering this post. I guess it's not time well spent trying to sort out each individual misconception. It must be more effective to just make sure the material is available in unobstructed and clear form for whomever might take the time to think about it. Except of course when it's seen also as a practice for communicating the issue. I think you have had plenty of practice though, and the current presentation form (the text in the various OP's) seem reasonably clear in my opinion. -Anssi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Rade Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Nothing is true "by definition". To so believe means one does not have a proper concept of either true or definition. Nothing claimed by anyone can be "true by definition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts