Doctordick Posted September 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2016 On the contrary, I have thought about it and that is exactly why I made the remarks I did about the the strictly provisional and cautious nature of any truth claims in science. In fact, it has been my experience that science generally avoids speaking about "truth". It talks about models, it talks about observations being "consistent with" theory, but it tends not to make any claims to truth as such. I note that your overall tone seems to be one of regarding everyone but yourself as an idiot. This is generally a sign of someone who is unbalanced. I am prepared to engage in discussion with you, but would be grateful if you could try to be a little less dismissive of my attempts to grapple with whatever it is you are trying to say.Absolutely everyone apparently misses the point I am trying to bring up! In order to comprehend any thought one must comprehend the language used to present that thought and one is not born knowing a language! The most briliant scientist who ever existed was born as ignorant. It takes as good length of time for him (or her) to comprehend the language they will use to express their thoughts. My point is the fact that the "language is arbitrary". When one learns the relevant language, one has a fair idea of what each relevent word means. The symbol used for that word is arbitrary. -- That is why humanity has created so many different languages. It is that freedom I wish to discuss. I will try to give a simple minded example of what I am talking about. If you know the language (English for example), you know what the word "this" means. You also know what the word "that" means. In this case, the word "dictionary" constitutes a collection of words which are defined. What I am talking about is the arbitrary nature of that representation. Consider the thought "This is a cow!" or "That car went by.". In some other language, those thoughts would be represented with different symbology. My point is the arbitrary nature of that symbology. If one understands a specific language, they should be able to construct a "dictionary" of the words needed. The first significant point is that the number of words required is finite. (Construction of an infinite dictionary is not a possibility!) The second point is that the representation of those words is arbitary. For example, given the entries of a dictionary: This -- [the definition of that word!] is -- [the definition of that word!] a -- [the definition of that word!] cow -- [the definition of that word!] That -- [the definition of that word!] car -- [the definition of that word!] went -- [the definition of that word!] by -- [the definition of that word!] ! -- [the definition of that symbol!] . -- [the definition of that symbol!]a space [the definition of that symbol!] That collection of "seven words and three symbols" is clearly only a minute fraction of what any useful language requires; however the representation of those words is a rather straight forward issue. If I were presenting a different language, those "representations" would be different. My point being that the representations themselves are absolutely arbitrary! Suppose one understands mathematical representation and decided to represent the relevant words with numeric labels (which I usually refer to as "indices" in my presentations). In that case, a dictionary representation of the above concepts could easily be: 223 -- [the definition of that word!] Originally "This" 16 -- [the definition of that word!] " "is" 2237 -- [the definition of that word!] " "a" 1 -- [the definition of that word!] " "cow" 756 -- [the definition of that word!] " "that" 39 -- [the definition of that word!] " "car" 256 -- [the definition of that word!] " "went" 99 -- [the definition of that word!] " "by" 242 -- [the definition of that symbol!] " "!" 12 -- [the definition of that symbol!] " "." 6094 -- [the definition of that symbol!] " "a space" and the two "thoughts", "This is a cow!" and "That car went by." could then be represented by (223,6094,16,6094,2237,6094,1,242) and (756,6094,39,6094,256,6094,99,12) It follows that, if one comprehended the language (was capable of following and/or constructing a dictionary), absolutely any thought, in the language of interest, could be represented by an expression of the form: [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] The most significant issue embedded in the above example is the fact that the "indices" in such a representation are absolutely arbitrary. One can assign any number one wishes to each required concept and still represent any thought expressible in that language via an expression of the form: [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] The above realization yields some rather astounding consequences. If one were to use the expression [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] to represent the probability the thought represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] were "true" then comprehending any explanation could be seen as "knowing" the value of the expression [math]P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] within the relevant language. The arbitrary nature of those indices implies that one could add any number "which I will represent with c" to each and every numerical index in a given representation (including the entire dictionary) without changing the represented thought in any way! That implies that [math](x_1+c,x_2+c,\cdots,x_n+c)[/math] would represent exactly the same thought previously represented by [math](x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math]. It follows directly that the probability a thought is true would be exactly the same in both representations. That fact requires that [math]P(x_1+c,x_2+c,\cdots,x_n+c)-P(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)[/math] must exactly vanish. One can immediately go one step further and assert that, in the universal representation I have just presented, [math]\lim_{\Delta c \to 0}\frac{P(x_1+c,x_2+c,\cdots,x_n+c)}{\Delta c} \equiv 0[/math] This (together with some subtle analysis) leads to an almost unbelievable constraint on absolutely all explanations which can be comprehended as valid. What I have been trying to find for some fifty years is someone who can comprehend what I have just put forth here. Somehow they always misinterpret what I am saying. If anyone can comprehend the above presentation, I would love to discuss the subject. Thanks -- Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

eodnhoj7 Posted October 18, 2017 Report Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) I should probably make this my name considering I repeat this point so much: "All existence is rooted and ends in space/spatial properties". In this respect, the mathematical equation you present (under an assumption it is correct for the sake of simplicity and argument) is rooted in "space" itself for abstraction is strictly space which does not flux, while physical space fluxes. Numbers must be rooted in spatial qualities in the respect all reality is rooted in space. In this respect 1 would be equivalent to the "point" as both are "unified as a symmetrical whole by the act of being a center". I believe with your emphasis on the "geometry" of the problem, if I read you correctly, is the right way to go considering all reality is "space". All number, being rooting in 1, is strictly an observation of a point consisting of 1 as a point. 1 and the point are synonymous, and in this respect 1 is a spatial property. This point reflecting upon itself, as an act of stability, manifests further points as approximate structures (2,3,4,etc.) unto infinity. Infinity, being unity as a stable whole, in turn cycles back as "1 point". In these respects all equations are strictly the observation of geometric properties within existence (curvature, movement, etc.) as they are one and the same. This should not be considered a surprise considering all mathematical equations, in theory and so far in practice, have corresponding physical structures they describe. In this respect, considering all reality is formed from space, what came first the "abstract equation" (as a geometric form) or the "physical entity". Considering the equation is stable (as 2 + 2 = 4 will always be 2 + 2 = 4) the physical reality is strictly just a fluxing approximate of it. This nature of space as stable fundamentally equates to etherial space and in this space all "forms" lie in it. This etherial space would be constituted as the "point", a geometric space which forms all abstract and physical realities. In reflecting upon itself as an act of self-maintaining symmetry, it allowed fluxing space to exist as an approximate reflective structure of itself. The greek "apieron" or "fluxing" space / chaos would be the space with which matter resides as an unstable element. In this respect of "fluxing" space we see the natures of "multiplication/division" become embodied through the propagation of materials (both organic and in organic) as they cycle through eachother as "particulate". These particulate, as gradations of a whole, exist if and only if they continue "relating" through "movement". So we can observe ethereal space as reflective stability and apeironic space as relational flux. These dual aspects of space, much like an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force, synthesize a form of neutral medial space as +- from which all these spaces extend form. In this case space manifests in a form of 3 in 1 and 1 in 3. So your equations emphasis on "spin", "circulation", "circles" (if I understand what you wrote correctly, as I cannot pull up the equation) is an emphasis to a degree on the universal nature of space manifesting itself through the act of "centering". In this respect, the point/circle/sphere are the constructs which form the elements of reality with 1) The point as reflective ethereal space providing stability2) The circle as a two dimensional version of the ethereal point manifesting flux.3) The sphere as the synthesis of the 1 dimensional point (ether) and 2 dimensional circle (aperion) manifesting the 3 dimensional sphere as the universal nature of how reality is observed as a median between stability and chaos. This median neutrality forms the axiom (or self-evidence) as the median through which reality exists. Edited October 18, 2017 by eodnhoj7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Doctordick Posted January 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2018 eodnhoj7 makes it quite clear that he comprehends not a single thing I have said!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Maine farmer Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 eodnhoj7 makes it quite clear that he comprehends not a single thing I have said!!!!!!!!!!!!And he has a lot of company exchemist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.