Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[Doctordick]

I see a problem, the thing is what I see my not be quite what you see, thus your solution may not match my question.

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that “how?” does not ask for a procedure? Or are you saying that your procedure might differ from mine?

Part of the problem is that it is almost impossible to start from scratch, becase even the _representation_ of something, must be implemented somewhere. In this case it's realtive to your brain at minumum.

You are confusing the problem with what you think the problem is. The problem is quite simple and exists as a problem even within your world-view. If you were given a stream of numbers and nothing else, how would you go about creating a method of explaining that stream of numbers? Is such a problem inconceivable to you or is it rather that solving such a problem is inconceivable to you? I suspect it is the latter; that the only solution you can conceive of is what I call the “guess and by golly” approach. My position is that this problem can be attacked logically if one is careful.

This implies a kind of nonlinear feedback between ontology and epistemology.

Yes, it certainly does. All epistemological constructs depend on a set of ontological elements and the explanation (or definition) of those ontological elements are part and parcel of the explanation of that epistemological construct.

If you suggest that there are no implications or applications, then I don't understand you.

A logical proof produces nothing not contained in the axioms on which the proof is based. What I am trying to communicate to you is that, under the definitions I lay out, that equation,

\left{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij} \delta(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j) \right}\vec{\Psi}= K \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi} = iKm \vec{\Psi},
​

has to be true. That is a logical deduction and subject to analysis on a purely objective abstract level. That fact has utterly no physical content. Physical content arises when the equation is related to reality; in order to provide that content, the solutions must be found and examined.

I still do suspect that you have something in mind that you aren't spelling out. If you have some amazing implications that will come when your equation is solved, then I think you should try to solve the equation, make the realizations and blow us off the chairs.

I have solved that equation and discovered some very interesting facts. First, it is a many body equation and, as I sure you are well aware, many body equations are always difficult to solve. However, there is a subtle way to extract a one body equation out of that relationship by presuming the solution for all elements but one is known (essentially, what might be seen as a Dirac delta function interaction allows the necessary integrals to be mathematically represented in terms of those known solutions). When that process is performed (with three very specific approximations), the result is exactly[/color] Schroedinger's equation and, identification of it with Schroedinger's equation turns out to define those approximations to be exactly the common approximations behind the standard applications of Schroedinger's equation.

Using Schroedinger's equation to define how the elements of the solutions relate to reality and then removing the approximations, the one body solution can be clearly identified with Dirac's equation in detail. That step identifies Electromagnetic terms. When that identification is put back into the original many body equation and the equation is solved for the behavior of those elements, one obtains exactly Maxwell's equation. At that point, another subtle element comes into play having to do with http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm (pull down to the last of that paper and you will find the comment at the top of the display). That shift in perspective was required to make my equation valid (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/appendex/notethre.htm ). That shift in perspective results ends up requiring special relativistic transformations between different “center of mass” solutions.

Just as Newtonian mechanics simplify to F=ma when one uses an "inertial frame", the constraints on a self consistent explanation simplify to the given fundamental equation when one works in the "center of mass system". It should be seen as nothing more than a mathematical convenience.

In order to obtain Maxwell's equations, I had to assume the interaction was mediated by massless ontological elements. The algebra does not actually require that assumption and, if the assumption is not made, one obtains a form of Maxwell's equations which essentially allows massive exchange elements. One then gets a summation over Yukawa radial forms for the short range “??electro-magnetic forces??” (if one wants to call them such).

In that process, the exchange elements are identified with various complex collections of ontological elements. If one examines the consequences of a gradient in the long range tail of these implied interactions, one obtains another effect due to the change in probability over the microscopic extent of the involved entity (what could be seen as a refraction effect). The consequence of that factor almost exactly matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of general relativity. There is one additional (very small term which would be almost unmeasurable) which would make its appearance in common physics as a very small additional attractive radial force. (?The reason for “dark matter” perhaps?) The whole realm of physics becomes unified under one quite simple relationship.

Now I am sure I have made errors in those deductions as none of them have ever been carefully examined by competent mathematicians; however, the supposed errors put forth by http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=277255#post277255 are not among them. Either he has no grasp of my definitions (he has merely scanned what I said without close attention) or his training in mathematical physics is woefully inadequate. (They locked the thread before I could point out the errors in his final post.) He claims to be a professor of graduate physics but I find that quite difficult to believe.

Now we are closing up on a benefit! If only we can see we need insights for? ;) "survival and growth"? If you take this is the indirect benefit... then I think "to fly" in this case would mean to make an application of your ideas, and show the power of the insights... and show how it outperforms it's competitors which lack the insight? This should in principle lead to testable ideas. One can device complex observations, that aren't instant.

Ninety nine percent of the testable observations have already been done! My equation is essentially a summary of the physics relationships already put forth to explain everything via the “guess and by golly” method of traditional physics. What is significant here is that I have deduced my equation as a necessary component of any flaw-free explanation of anything. Would you prefer it just be conjured up my dreams? A “perhaps” relationship put forth as Maxwell put forth his equations? Maxwell is an excellent example of what I call the “guess and by golly” attack. Remember, what he actually did was to add a term to what was already known because it made the relationships look symmetric and embodied all of the other results already known. He did not deduce it from fundamental logic. It was a guess and, by golly, it turned out to be right.

With regard to “mode of attack” I would say that my approach is more akin to the explanation of the spectrum of Black body radiation. When I was a student, that subject was introduced as a solution to dynamic scattering which left the velocity distribution stable. (Scattering out of a state must exactly balance scattering into the state.) It turns out that there is only one velocity distribution which satisfies that constraint so one can start with a totally unknown solution and, by internal consistency, find exactly what that distribution had to be. The logic is good, the fact that only one solution exists was a discovery. I start with a totally undefined ontology and discover that, if we wish to have a flaw-free explanation, there exists a mathematical constraint on the probability distribution of references to those ontological elements.

It is interesting to note that the physics community, by talking about a TOE, has essentially already accepted the idea that everything might be deducible from fundamental logic; they just haven't done it yet. Either I have shown you how to do it or I have made an error in my logic. No one points out any errors in my logic; instead, they just refer to my work as “moronic” philosophy.

I hope I have not upset anyone -- Dick

 

[Fra]

Ok, I'll go to your numbers... and see if it makes it clearer. I'll try to go through this with comments, let me konw if I get you right. I'll do it step by step, in case you have comments, se we can keep the responses short.

I don't ask you to believe me, I merely ask you to look at an analytical proof that the equation,

\left{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij} \delta(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j) \right}\vec{\Psi}= K \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi} = iKm \vec{\Psi},
​

follows directly from my definitions by straight forward logic and nothing more. Our major problem in communications is that you want to bring more to the table. This is a very simple problem and most everyone buries its simplicity in inconsequential issues.

From http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

1. A is a set. "What is to be explained."
2. B(tk) is a finite unordered collection of elements of A. "A hypothetical collection of information obtained from A."
3. C is a finite collection of sets B(tk). "What is known about A: i.e., our given known information."

So whatever it is we don't know at some point, you consider this to form a set. But this set remains undefined since it's elements are undefined. So all we do is assigning a symbol A, to denote this unkonwn set. So far we know nothing of A, regarding countability, representation of elements, or anything. I'm not even sure we know the set exists, because it's not defined yet. We just assigned it a symbol. It's elements are undefined.

B is hypothetical information we imagine we might possibly come into possession of? But the set of all possible B, is defined as subets of A - which is unkonwn, this means the B's are also unknown?

C represents what we know, which is considered to form an finite ordered set of B-sets. So far C is the only thing that we defined and determined completely (since by definition, C is given).

how does that look? take your tie to respong, I'm on vacation ymself... I am not very active online. So I don't mind at all if it takes a few days to respond.

/Fredrik

 

[AnssiH]

Hi Anssi, it's good to have you back. I have been spending a lot of my time on ZBrush. Right now the learning curve is pretty steep; the system is just too powerful and it's hard to keep all the methods in mind.

Heh, yes it is. They are using it on many expensive movie productions, so it is fairly powerful. The newest version (3?) has got much more intuitive UI than the earlier versions I hear.

Well, we will have that experience a week from now. My wife has booked a River cruse on the Danube and we will be in Prague a week from Monday. I probably won't be able to access the Internet for some three weeks. You might talk to Fredrik while I am gone. I think you understand what he is missing and maybe you could communicate it better than I can.

Heh, yeah probably, just haven't had much time to read his posts too carefully yet. Maybe you are also able to help me out with the math Fredrik?

I don't think you will have any real problems; as Richard Feynman used to say, “mathematics is the distilled essence of logic” and logic is your strong point.

Well funny thing, when I finished the 9-year comprehensive school I was inches away from receiving the best grade in math. My teacher said she spent a lot of time thinking really long and hard whether to give it to me or not, but decided not to in the end. Had she done it, I would have been the only one from the whole school to get it (I think some 100 people graduated). Still, I take it I was the only one they had trouble deciding :)

Anyway, imagine her shock when she realized I wasn't going to continue studying math. Just didn't care, you know. And I have forgotten a lot of that stuff since (plus it really wasn't too advanced math at that time). Also let it be mentioned that a lot of the credit does go to that teacher. She really knew how to explain things properly. A teacher who actually knew how to make people learn. Go figure.

Again yes; however, you need to keep in mind the fact that, when we have a specific number and/or a specific present, we have a specific explanation being represented. There is a very subtle thing going on here.

Oh yeah, you know I remember wondering about this at some point. So for example when two different epistemological solutions have defined simultaneity differently, they could be having the "same" ontological elements in different presents? Is this the way the epistemological solutions always define "simultaneity"?

Hmm, if one were to represent some system in a relativistic spacetime with this scheme, how would they represent a single "present"? Just from an arbitrary inertial frame? I.e. they could represent the same system with many tables that at the face of it look different, and be explicitly aware of them being the same system?

These additions represent assumptions which have been made in order to “understand” (make coherent) a specific explanation. The important part here is that the character of those “assumptions” and the purpose they serve (the role they play in developing the “method” of the explanation).

The last sentence seems to be cut short at a critical point... :P
Their purpose is to make reality understandable? I take it this is another way to put the issue that we must assume certain identity to "noumena" around us (in an undefendable manner) to make sense of the "their behaviour" (to put into words what "phenomena" exist).

What you really know is in your left hand and the structure you need to defend the explanation is in your right hand.

And in essence my thoughts about reality are the structures found from the table on the right hand, right? The left hand table was the one including only the undefined elements, or only the "valid ontological elements", wasn't it? Is it a good idea to describe that as "what I really know"; isn't it rather the table that is (fundamentally) hidden underneath "what I think I know". I.e. beyond my direct sight. I need to ask because there's a good chance I've made more subtle invalid assumptions somewhere in here :)

Once again, life gets subtle. I am adding totally arbitrary “invalid elements” (arbitrary in that “what they are” is as undefined as are the “valid ontological elements”) but they are being added to accomplish some very specific results. What will happen, when we solve that equation,

\left{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij} \delta(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j) \right}\vec{\Psi}= K \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi} = iKm \vec{\Psi},
​

is that identification of these “invalid elements” with specific ontological elements of the explanation will become quite obvious: i.e., your explanations, if they are flaw-free, will indeed make use of exactly these invalid ontological elements. It turns out that it has to do that or the specific explanation will contain exactly the flaws these elements were introduced to eliminate. This is something you will understand down the line.

I hope so... I have yet to go through post #471 properly.

Ah, again, subtly rears its ugly head. First two presents can only be identical if the ontological elements making them up are the same which means we are speaking of a specific epistemological construct (the reference labels have been defined).

Right... Each element in the undefined table has got to be unique, that's how it was? That's how it must be I guess. No single element can be found from two different presents if no identity to anything has been defined.

I think that, here, you are confusing the meaning of “existing knowledge” (English is not a very precise language for expressing these ideas). We are talking about the existence of ontological elements on which the explanation rests; not exactly equivalent to the full range of what can be meant by the English term “existing knowledge”.

Yeah, I thought that could be the case. That at least makes the problem far easier!

Also, perhaps it would be easier to think about these tables in terms of only including the ontological elements of a "single system" rather than including a full "present". I'm just saying that because one difficulty in trying to figure out your treatment comes from trying to imagine the mind boggling amount of information we could gather about every present. So if that is okay, I think it would be easier to explain this to people that way.

I figure this treatmet should work (to certain extent) when just limited to explaining a single system (however one wants to draw the boundaries of that system), since we are always working with limited amount of information about the universe anyway.

I'll try to get back to those older posts soon...

-Anssi

 

[Doctordick]

Well Fredric, you seem to begin alright but I get a sense (from your last statement) that you are missing a subtle but very important fact. It is an issue apparently difficult for others to comprehend. I think I finally managed to communicate it to Anssi but even he regularly slides back to not recognizing it (or at least not taking it into account in his thoughts). I guess it is a concept for which English just has not yet provided us with a label. In our conversation, Anssi and I essentially get around the problem with the idea of a ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] tabular explanation. That works only because it requires no epistemological construct.

As far as the issue of definition goes, you need to understand my earlier post to Anssi.

What you need to do is comprehend that we are dealing with two rather different issues here. First there is that collection of “valid ontological elements” underlying our world view (you can think of this as a basic, undefined, ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table in your left hand) and, secondly, there is that epistemological solution which is our world-view itself. That world view (and that would be any explicitly defined explanation) includes the assumption of certain “invalid ontological elements” necessary to that epistemological solution. Thus that “defined” representation must include those “invalid” elements (you can think of this as a second, explicitly defined, ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table in your right hand). What I am going to do is add some rather arbitrary “invalid ontological elements” to that second table.

The table in your left hand is a totally undefined issue and the reference labels are not defined in any way. The second table, in your right hand is defined only in the sense that specific numerical labels have been given. What those labels refer to is still undefined. The second table includes all the information necessary to represent a specific explanation. The problem of understanding that explanation is still extant. The only difference is that the second table includes references to “invalid ontological elements” presumed to exist by the explainer. Anssi is still having problems understanding this issue and I will try to clear it up for him below.

Ok, I'll go to your numbers... and see if it makes it clearer. I'll try to go through this with comments, let me konw if I get you right. I'll do it step by step, in case you have comments, se we can keep the responses short.

I will do my best. First, I start by noticing that you begin below my definition of “an explanation”. I will take that to indicate you are willing to work with that definition.

So whatever it is we don't know at some point, you consider this to form a set.

I only used the term “set” because I wanted a way to refer to it. The use of that term brought about a significant amount of complaints as to what the definition of a set was so I don't tend to use it any more. Instead, I define reality to be the “valid ontological elements” the entirety of which I call A, what is to be explained. And, yes, until an explanation is produced, it is undefined. And yes, the initial state is “we know nothing of A”; all we have done is assigned it a symbol. (Just as an aside, if it doesn't exist, we are talking about Solipsism but that is really of no concern to my analysis.)

There is a little confusion with regard to the definition of B and C. When I originally wrote this document, I presumed that the idea that the initial C and the first B(t) were identical was obvious; however, that issue seems to be in question. Since that date, I have taken to presenting C as the data (or information or valid ontological elements behind our epistemological solution or whatever you want to call it) as what lies behind our explanation (whatever that happens to be). Two things need to be understood. First C is always exactly what lies behind our solution. I define[/color] that to be “the past”. Exactly what constitutes the past only becomes defined when an explanation is presented. It follows that, from the perspective of the problem to be solved, C is no more defined than is A. The past is thus defined to be what is known of A (an undefined collection of information, data, whatever ...). The future is defined to be what is not known of A.

The index t was introduced for the explicit purpose of allowing the past (what is known of A to change). B is defined to be a change in C. One very important issue comes into play here. That is the fact that C and changes in C (otherwise known as B) cannot be infinite. By definition, infinite means that no matter how much information we have, there is more. It follows that any explanation must be based on a finite amount of information: i.e., both C and B must be finite. Since the number of changes in C (and that would be specific B's) must be finite, it follows that they may be ordered. The symbol “t” (which I define to be time – because I know where this thing is going) is defined to be an index of that order. I finally define a change in the past (as defined) to be the “present”. Under these definitions, B(t) becomes the representation of a specific present.

Clearly, once that aspect is understood, it should be clear to you that C can be seen as finite collection of presents. As I call it, our given “known information”. What needs to be held in mind is the fact that this known information is still not actually defined. In order to define it, we need an explanation from whence we can deduce the definitions (not at all a trivial task). The important point is that an explanation, no matter what that explanation is, can be expressed in terms of those ontological elements: i.e., it is the explanation which provides us with the data necessary to actually create definitions of those elements.

There is a very important (but perhaps subtle) error in this statement:

B is hypothetical information we imagine we might possibly come into possession of? But the set of all possible B, is defined as subets of A - which is unkonwn, this means the B's are also unknown?

B's are only defined via a specific explanation so, from our perspective (analyzing the the problem), exactly what B is, must be undefined. You are absolutely correct there; however, B(t) is not defined as subsets of A. B(t) is defined to be a finite unordered collection of elements of A. There are two important aspects of that definition: first, it is defined to be unordered as all order is to be indicated by the “t” index. Secondly, B(t) is defined to be a collection of elements of A. Under the common definition of sets, duplicates are not allowed so there should be no duplicates in A; however, under the definition of B, duplicate elements are certainly possible. A subtle but important point: the collections B(t) can not be seen as subsets of A.

C represents what we know, which is considered to form an finite ordered set of B-sets. So far C is the only thing that we defined and determined completely (since by definition, C is given).

C is no more defined (other than being the information our solution is based upon) than are either A or B. These are no more than abstract categories which I use in my deduction. What you must keep in mind is the fact that only explanations can define what these things are and explanations are epistemological constructs (theories) and could very well be in error.

That brings me to the definition of another term: “Flaw-Free”. I define an explanation to be “Flaw-Free” if and only if there exists no information within C which can invalidate that explanation. That is to say, it is totally consistent with “the past” (what is known). You should understand that the only “flaw-free” explanation which does not require a epistemological construct is the ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] tabular explanation.

I hope I have cleared a few things up.

Looking to hear from you -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Anssi, once again, I am delighted with your post. You express your confusion very clearly and well. By the way, I have both version 2 (which I bought) and version 3 which was sent as an upgrade on my purchase. The “practical manual” on version 3 is over 700 pages PDF pages. I finally got into “sculpting” on 3 this morning; there are some important changes from 2.

I am not surprised by either of your statements, doing well in math and not continuing with it. In many respects studying math is much like doing logic puzzles, really not very much fun unless you are into it. It reminds me of my math professor in graduate school (for some strange reason, I took all my graduate mathematics from the same fellow). He was born in the 1880's and often made some delightful comments. In differentiating, Newton introduced using a dot above a variable to indicate time differentials whereas Leibniz introduced the d/dx notation. My professor said he “preferred deism to dotism because, when he was a student, flies often created unwanted differentiation when one used dotism”. He was the one who told me that “mathematics was the invention and study of self consistent systems”. As I am sure you are well aware, exponents essentially tell you how many times you are to multiply something by itself (well define for an integer). The extension to fractional exponents is an exercise in logic. The only reason I bring that up is that, when I was a graduate student, I thought about extending differentiation and integrating to fractional operations: i.e., can one create an internally consistent definition of a fractional derivative?

\frac{d^{3.141592}}{dx^{3.141592}} = ? [/itex]<br />​

<br /> <br /> Well, I managed to define such a thing in a consistent manner and I took it to show it to him. He looked at it; then turned around to his book shelf and pulled down a book, opened it and pointed to the definition of fractional differentiation. The guy knew a lot of stuff. He kind of left me with the impression that most anything that could be thought of already had but he never did it in a way that discouraged one from thinking. Even that time, it was really sort of a compliment that I had done it correctly. But I really had no interest in “doing mathematics” so I think I know how you felt.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Oh yeah, you know I remember wondering about this at some point. So for example when two different epistemological solutions have defined simultaneity differently, they could be having the &quot;same&quot; ontological elements in different presents? Is this the way the epistemological solutions always define &quot;simultaneity&quot;? </div> </div> </blockquote>In a sense, yes; but let us not get into that issue right now as my perspective is quite alien to the norm. My definition of time has to do with the information available to be used to create your world-view not the common concept, “time is what clocks measure”. Just as an aside, you should realize that “clocks” are quite complex objects from the perspective of fundamental ontological elements. We will get into the issue of relativity when we begin to look at solutions to my equation. It arises in a manner quite different from the way the issue arose in common science and it turns out to be a required phenomena in any flaw-free explanation. <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Their purpose is to make reality understandable? I take it this is another way to put the issue that we must assume certain identity to &quot;noumena&quot; around us (in an undefendable manner) to make sense of the &quot;their behaviour&quot; (to put into words what &quot;phenomena&quot; exist). </div> </div> </blockquote>I sense a little confusion here. When I say, “their purpose is to make reality understandable”, what I mean is that they are necessary to a flaw-free explanation. The real issue here is “causality”. Note that there is no causality in the ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] tabular explanation. Causality is a very central issue of epistemological constructs; causality is the answer to the question “why?” and that is how “understanding” gets into the picture. The common concept is that you understand something when you know “why” it happens and you only know that when it has been explained to you: i.e., that explanation has arisen again and we are outside the problem of interest here. For the moment, the only thing you know about any explanation is that there is enough information in that “right hand” ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table for you to figure it out. As far as we are concerned here, it is still nothing more than a table.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> And in essence my thoughts about reality are the structures found from the table on the right hand, right? The left hand table was the one including only the undefined elements, or only the &quot;valid ontological elements&quot;, wasn&#039;t it? Is it a good idea to describe that as &quot;what I really know&quot;; isn&#039;t it rather the table that is (fundamentally) hidden underneath &quot;what I think I know&quot;. I.e. beyond my direct sight. I need to ask because there&#039;s a good chance I&#039;ve made more subtle invalid assumptions somewhere in here :) </div> </div> </blockquote>I think the real problem here is that you are trying to figure out epistemological consequences of what I am explaining. At the moment, there can be no epistemological consequences as, if there were, it would imply that there exists a solution which cannot be represented in my model and that makes the model “wrong”. That is why I stick so carefully to that ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] representation. In other words, even when you are given a specific solution, it is given to you in a form which can be put into a ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table and you still have the problem of figuring it out. In order to keep “ALL” possibilities open, we must also keep the possibility that you are misinterpreting the explanation itself (you see the fundamental problem exists on all levels and we have no reason to bring “understanding” into the discussion as that is a theoretical hypothesis).<br /> <br /> Think again about my question, how do you tell a Volkswagen from an electron. Suppose you were given the data for a ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table and found the same label being used in two different places could you use that to defend the fact that the explanation being represented referred to the same thing in both places? Suppose you had come to the conclusion that the label referred to what you had decided to call a beetle. Does the question not still exist as to whether that is a “bug” or a “vehicle”? (I was very tempted to say “was that a bug or a bug” which might or might not clear up my comment.) Let us not get into those issues. The only issue of interest to us is, does the model allow representation of any data set of any kind.<br /> <br /> I suspect the problem here is that you are trying to understand my solution in terms of your general epistemological solution: i.e., your current world-view. What you have to understand is that we are working with a pure deduction based on the definitions I put forth. I give you reasons for those definitions and for the “invalid ontological elements” I decide are convenient to my representation: i.e., make that representation more convenient. What you need to do is to understand those definitions in terms of the problem, not in terms of the solution. <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I hope so... I have yet to go through <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1376878#post1376878" class="link link--internal">post #471</a> properly. </div> </div> </blockquote>From your comments, I would say we shouldn&#039;t worry about that post for the moment.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Right... Each element in the undefined table has got to be unique, that&#039;s how it was? That&#039;s how it must be I guess. No single element can be found from two different presents if no identity to anything has been defined. </div> </div> </blockquote>What you need to remember is that this situation still exists when “invalid ontological elements“ are introduced: i.e., when you are attempting to interpret another&#039;s explanation; the one somewhat in your right hand. That is to say, even when you are dealing with a specific explanation (unless it is your own explanation) two labels being the same can not be taken to mean the references are the same (exactly what is meant by the word “bug” anyway).<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Also, perhaps it would be easier to think about these tables in terms of only including the ontological elements of a &quot;single system&quot; rather than including a full &quot;present&quot;. </div> </div> </blockquote>What ever they are, they are what your explanation is to explain and nothing is to be left out; not if the explanation is to be flaw-free.<br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="AnssiH" data-source="post: 1400113" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> AnssiH said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> I&#039;m just saying that because one difficulty in trying to figure out your treatment comes from trying to imagine the mind boggling amount of information we could gather about every present. So if that is okay, I think it would be easier to explain this to people that way. </div> </div> </blockquote>The problem is that “in trying to figure out” my treatment, you are not referring to my logic. Instead you are trying to apply your world view to the logic. I am deducing a relationship required by my defined entities. This deduction is simply a logical deduction derived from my definition of “an explanation”, it has absolutely nothing to do with reality unless you can cast your picture of reality in my definitions. For the moment you shouldn&#039;t be worrying about that issue.<br /> <br /> Read my comments to Fredrik.<br /> <br /> Have fun -- Dick

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Interesting debate!

Time as an experience and time as an entity "defined" are slightly different I feel. I mean, time as an experience is not the "t" in the equations. Time as a "universal" and time as a perception are just as different as "my view point" and "fact".

My view point states that Earth is stable and that the skies are moving. Fact says that Earth is revolving.

To question which is true requires definition of "truth".

Besides, "changes" are also perceptions, just like time. So, whether you say "time is an illusion" or that "changes are an illusion", i think both are not different, but that both are perceptions. Perception itself is a function of time, ini the sense that you percieve "in time". Sleep for example, you don't percieve anything and so, you can't "feel" time.

in that sense, time is certainly an illusion, more of a "delusion", in the sense that its our way of seeing something that exists. Its a phenomenon rather than a nuomenon.

But time as an entity, as that thing that keeps the world running even when we are sleeping and not percieving is quite different. It is a "fact" of life so to speak.

Thus, at one level, time is just a delusion, on another level, its a fact of life without which we cannot live.

Thus, I think truth to be of different levels. One level is the sensory perception level, and the others being different levels of "existence". One is certainly delusional in the light of a more fundamental level of truth, but nonetheless, without our sense of "time", our perception of "time", there's no thinking, being or non-being, isn't it? Without that perception, there's no "life".

Hence, at its own level, time as a perception is a fact of life, just like the time as entity. Similarly, at its own level, time as the entity is also delusional when seen with the point of view of the illusion of perception.

And so, no one can ever say whether time, either as perception or as an entity, is an "illusion" or not. Its just a matter of view point. And never that a single view point can give a complete picture. In that sense, it can't be "proven" as to what it is.

DJ

 

[Doctordick]

Hi d_jnaneswar, I googled your name and found the animator d_jnaneswar quite interesting. If you are he, I think you have what it takes to succeed (of course, with that endorsement and a dollar, you can get a cup of coffee ).

I appreciate your post although I think it is a bit facile. You are absolutely right,

To question which is true requires definition of "truth".

and the only truth you can be sure of is that you personally mean what you mean when you use a symbol to represent what you mean. (A rather esoteric expression of “truth by definition”. ) The problem being, the rest of us have to figure out what you mean! What I am saying is that truth by definition is the only truth worthy of rational logic and it is a very personal thing. What you mean and what I mean by the same symbol can be very different things even when we think we are agreeing. Life is tough all over.

Thus, at one level, time is just a delusion, on another level, its a fact of life without which we cannot live.

Now here you have to define “live”. My position is quite simple: without the concept of time (an idea and thus an illusion created by you, meaning what you mean) you could not “understand” reality. Reality being what exists. In other words, without a concept of time nothing could be understood and understanding is the fundamental goal of life. (We can talk about that if you want to.)

It's nice to talk to you -- Dick

 

[AnssiH]

My professor said he “preferred deism to dotism because, when he was a student, flies often created unwanted differentiation when one used dotism”.

Hoh :)

In a sense, yes; but let us not get into that issue right now as my perspective is quite alien to the norm. My definition of time has to do with the information available to be used to create your world-view not the common concept, “time is what clocks measure”. Just as an aside, you should realize that “clocks” are quite complex objects from the perspective of fundamental ontological elements. We will get into the issue of relativity when we begin to look at solutions to my equation. It arises in a manner quite different from the way the issue arose in common science and it turns out to be a required phenomena in any flaw-free explanation.

Well I'm intrigued. But yeah, let's not get into it yet.

I sense a little confusion here. When I say, “their purpose is to make reality understandable”, what I mean is that they are necessary to a flaw-free explanation.

Heh, I sense a little confusion here too and I am sorry I only added to it by not being very clear :)

"Their purpose is to make reality understandable" was my guess as to what was the message of your half a sentence: "The important part here is that the character of those “assumptions” and the purpose they serve." (...is...?)

So I take it I guessed the missing part correctly. So another way to put it is that specific epistemological solutions add (assume) specific elements (that are required by just that specific solution). I.e. they add elements that make explanations possible/simple. That would sound very much reasonable in that that's how I view (semantical) worldviews with my common sense logic as well, so when we have this treatment of yours that explores "internal coherence" of worldviews, that ought to become an explicit fact rather than just my assumption. Am I correct?

The left hand table was the one including only the undefined elements, or only the "valid ontological elements", wasn't it? Is it a good idea to describe that as "what I really know"; isn't it rather the table that is (fundamentally) hidden underneath "what I think I know". I.e. beyond my direct sight. I need to ask because there's a good chance I've made more subtle invalid assumptions somewhere in here :)

I think the real problem here is that you are trying to figure out epistemological consequences of what I am explaining.

Hmmm, I'm not sure what this is referring to... Perhaps my question was posed in a confusing manner. I made that comment because I was surprised about the sentence; "What you really know is in your left hand" (= a basic, undefined, ”what is”, is “what is” table = collection of “valid ontological elements” underlying our world view). I suppose there was a logical reason to refer to it as "what you really know", but it can certainly be misleading to people when it's still confusing to me too.

I finally got around reading Fredrik's posts, and I think the same misinterpretation occurred there, that the undefined "what is, is what is"-table would be something that we could first construct somehow "correctly" and then carry on to define it. That's leading the focus away from where it should be; on the necessary relationships between any unknown elements no matter how one might choose to define them. Am I making sense?

Think again about my question, how do you tell a Volkswagen from an electron. Suppose you were given the data for a ”what is”, is “what is”[/color] table and found the same label being used in two different places could you use that to defend the fact that the explanation being represented referred to the same thing in both places? Suppose you had come to the conclusion that the label referred to what you had decided to call a beetle. Does the question not still exist as to whether that is a “bug” or a “vehicle”? (I was very tempted to say “was that a bug or a bug” which might or might not clear up my comment.)

Heh, I think it would :) That's a good comment anyway.

The problem is that “in trying to figure out” my treatment, you are not referring to my logic. Instead you are trying to apply your world view to the logic. I am deducing a relationship required by my defined entities. This deduction is simply a logical deduction derived from my definition of “an explanation”, it has absolutely nothing to do with reality unless you can cast your picture of reality in my definitions. For the moment you shouldn't be worrying about that issue.

Yeah I get that, and I am not supposing that the treatment would give us an unambiguous way to think about the system (like tell us how to interpret a dual slit experiment or anything).

I can tell you that you have very much convinced me that your treatment is very useful for a lot of things and so I am very much interested in figuring it out myself (and I would be surprised to find a fatal flaw from it).

When I say "figuring it out myself" I mean really understand the reasons behind every step (and consequently understand different ways to perform similar steps).

Oftentimes how new ideas are presented to people/students is they are simply told what the solution is, and like you say, they need to take it on faith without understanding why things are so. I suppose that's how a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics are taught even today (I know that is how they are explained to the general public, which IMO is doing more harm than good). When I study something myself, or when I try to explain something to someone, I try to begin with the problem, and then try to go through the steps towards the full solution (which almost always includes a host of small solutions that introduced new problems and their solutions)

I know you started with the grand chicken-egg problem with Fredrik (and I suppose he had a decent grasp at that problem), but when you go to the "what is, is what is"-table, the reasons for having that table will not be cleared until waaay down the line. And until they are, people are forced to make a lot of false assumptions; there are just too many possibilities open to them. (That is why I went back to the old posts recently, and this time around I could make better assumptions)

Although, I'm not saying I'd know a better way to explain the treatment (especially not yet) since teaching things really is not the most trivial thing to do. Most professional teachers I know simply can't do it (So I like to study things myself), and when I try to explain something to people it is usually very time-consuming process to put my own thoughts in such order that others can understand them at all.

Anyway, next time I'll continue with the post #477...

-Anssi

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Hi d_jnaneswar, I googled your name and found the animator d_jnaneswar quite interesting. If you are he, I think you have what it takes to succeed (of course, with that endorsement and a dollar, you can get a cup of coffee ).

I appreciate your post although I think it is a bit facile. You are absolutely right,
and the only truth you can be sure of is that you personally mean what you mean when you use a symbol to represent what you mean. (A rather esoteric expression of “truth by definition”. ) The problem being, the rest of us have to figure out what you mean! What I am saying is that truth by definition is the only truth worthy of rational logic and it is a very personal thing. What you mean and what I mean by the same symbol can be very different things even when we think we are agreeing. Life is tough all over.
Now here you have to define “live”. My position is quite simple: without the concept of time (an idea and thus an illusion created by you, meaning what you mean) you could not “understand” reality. Reality being what exists. In other words, without a concept of time nothing could be understood and understanding is the fundamental goal of life. (We can talk about that if you want to.)

It's nice to talk to you -- Dick

Hey Dick!

Yeah, i understand what you mean. Firstly, I am that animator, hehe. True that communicating what is "truth" is awful hard, everyone has their own meanings and symbols. Life is tough all over.. well said!

Hmm.. I meant "live" in the normal sense of the word, going about one's life.

My position is quite simple: without the concept of time (an idea and thus an illusion created by you, meaning what you mean) you could not “understand” reality. Reality being what exists.

Well, given that you have time, can one ever understand the reality - reality as what exists? Can one understand the nuomenon? Or just the phenomenon?

I think we are bound by our sensory perception, and our logical abilities, and as long as we are within those bounds, as long as we use any of those, we are stuck to observe only the phenomenon -- What appears to be. Isnt it?

And time is also a phenomenon. It is something we observe. Something we experience. But, when we sleep, we don't experience it. Why? Because, it is a perception of the senses and the mind - mind as in that which relates and creates images from what our senses supply it.

In other words, when changes are said to be perceived by the senses, mind registers it as passage of time. But changes themselves are nothing but what our limited senses (or our limited mind) percieves. Thus they are also just perceptions and perceptions can't be reality - reality as in what exists.

In that case, with-in time too, we can't "understand" reality.

On another note, reality, if it means what "exists", it will bring into question "existing when?" Thus, the question is whether the existence of anything is bound by time or not. Not just whether we percieve it or not, but whether time is fundamental to "existence" or not. If it were not, then the world wouldn't "RUN" when we are asleep. So, it does underly that reality which we percieve as this world. It does underly even our perception of Time! Thus, it must "exist".

Truth, (meaning a fact) thus, is of two levels here. Truth about time, is of two levels. At one level, time is purely experiential. At another level, time is purely existential. Both of these truths are based on one another.

Since the world (our perception of what exists) appears to change constantly, we conclude that it changes. And change is what we attribute to what exists, especially when we "assume" changes even when we don't percieve them (like in sleep). But change is also just a perception, based on our limited sensory abilities. So, change is also of those two levels of truth. One level based on the other.

In either cases, it makes it clear that we humans cannot percieve reality at all, but only an approximation of it, but we can deduct what might exist as the foundation of our experience. Since experience is a "sequential" phenomenon, it is bound by the perceived time and also the existential time (which is a logical assumption). Thus, as long as one is bound "with in" time, one can only glimpse parts of perception at a time and never the whole.

Undertanding, thus, doesn't come as long as we are bound by sensory perception, or assumptions based on our limited minds which make judgements based on previous perceptions.

Then how can reality be known? Be understood?

The question comes back sharply as to "Be understood by whom?" Without understanding the self, there is no way unlocking the mystery of time. Much similar to this is the fact that until one knows the specs of a micro scope, one can't estimate the size of what's being seen through it. Without knowing the ability of the microscope, how much this particular piece scales things up at this moment, there's no way to estimate what the actual scale/size of the things that this microscope seems to show. Similarly, without understanding the perciever, perception can't be accurately deciphered. But the concept of self, self-awareness, consciousness and all of that good stuff belongs in another thread, may be.

I am not a professional philosopher or anything. I am just a computers guy trying to make sense of things that i see. So, please do correct me if I go wrong and please allow certain lapses in language and take the spirit of it rather than the letter of it.

Thanks a lot for everyone for keeping such a wonderful forum and such lively discussions.

DJ

 

[Doctordick]

Anssi, you are so coherent! I read a number of forums but seldom post (I have been told that the behavior marks me as a “Troll”).

CHALMERS: "Why should a physical system, no matter how complex and well-organized, give rise to experience at all?"

I tried to correspond with Chalmers for a while a number of years ago. I am sure he wouldn't remember me as he insisted on pushing the idea that he knew a lot more about the problem than I did (I took it to be pretty well an emotional reaction sans thought). I could not get it across to him that the problem he was trying to solve was actually a consequence of presuming his world-view was a valid representation of reality: i.e., he was presuming his question had meaning when, if fact, it was “completely up to how one wants to understand the situation”. By the way, it's easy to write an AI program which will claim to have experiences; the problem is that, after we interact with the thing for a while, we will probably dismiss it as “unintelligent”.

Many years ago, I read an article which was titled (I think), “First program written which passes the Turing test; and it's paranoid!” When I read the article, it turned out that somebody at a psychology department had written a program to provide psychology students with practice handling typical paranoid behavior. It turned out that the program worked quite well: trained psychologists couldn't tell the difference between the programs reactions and typical paranoid reactions. When I read it, it seemed to me that what they had actually proved was that “paranoids” don't think.

But back to your last post on this thread; all in all I think you pretty well understand what I am doing. I think your only confusion seems to be from trying to extend what I am saying beyond what I am actually saying. The sole purpose of the current discussion is to convince you that my equation,

\left{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij} \delta(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j) \right}\vec{\Psi}= K \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi} = iKm \vec{\Psi},
​

does indeed follow directly from my definitions. Trying to interpret what those definitions mean (beyond the meanings required by the deduction itself) isn't really an important issue. Not now anyway and I think my being drawn into such a discussion really isn't beneficial though such things will arise later. The meanings required by the deduction will become an important issue when it comes to interpreting the solutions to that equation. It is at that time that I will start defining other things. What is important is that these additional definitions must not conflict with those definitions already established.

Well I'm intrigued. But yeah, let's not get into it yet.

A wise choice; however, you are making it clear that you will not be satisfied until you understand the solutions so we do have some work ahead of us.

... that ought to become an explicit fact rather than just my assumption. Am I correct?

If you mean by this comment that these “added invalid ontological” elements correspond to “explicit facts” required by your explanation you are totally correct. But just as the existence of the Gods (or God) is a fact required by a typical theological explanation, you must always remember that an explanation might exist which would not require these elements. A subtle point (not important now) which is very important for any philosophical interpretation of my results.

I suppose there was a logical reason to refer to it as "what you really know", but it can certainly be misleading to people when it's still confusing to me too.

Yes, I agree with you. What is happening is that I am thinking about interpreting the solutions to the equation and I should not be bringing any of that up now. There is an important issue which will arise with that solution having to do with the existence of those “valid ontological elements” (valid and invalid ontological elements will end up being handled in a slightly differentl manner). For the moment, that isn't an issue we should be worrying about.

That's leading the focus away from where it should be; on the necessary relationships between any unknown elements no matter how one might choose to define them. Am I making sense?

Absolutely! I apologize for being confusing. Down the road (when we begin to work with solutions), you will come to understand that there is a subtle difference in the “necessary relationships” required of valid and invalid ontological elements. For example, the number of “valid ontological elements” underlying your explanation must be finite whereas the number of “invalid ontological elements” can easily be infinite as they are mere intellectual concepts presumed to represent reality. You cannot tell the difference between them, but the mathematics of their representation becomes subtly different. I really shouldn't be bringing this up now but I trust you won't start worrying about it until we get to the issues.

That's a good comment anyway.

Why am I not surprised that you understood exactly what I meant. Essentially I agree with everything you said in your post. Explaining something new is not an easy job and I think you are doing an excellent job of picking up my intentions.

Anyway, next time I'll continue with the post #477...

I have just reread both #477 and #478 (the two are actually one post) and there is quite a bit of the important issues covered there. If you do manage to figure out the details of those two posts, I think you will be close to being convinced that my equation is a valid representation of the most important logical constraints on a flaw-free explanation.

I am sure you will have some questions so I will figure on ironing those out when I get back. My wife has found a note in the cruise information which indicates there will be no Internet access on the boat. I am going to bring my portable anyway so I can work on picking up ZBbrush and, if I do happen to run into access, I might check you guys out. Meanwhile, maybe you and Fredrik can make some headway with each others help.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Firstly, I am that animator, hehe.

Are you familiar with ZBbrush? It is a astonishingly powerful program which Anssi introduced to me.

Well, given that you have time, can one ever understand the reality - reality as what exists? Can one understand the nuomenon? Or just the phenomenon?

The only thing anyone can understand are “explanations”. Belief that you understand anything beyond some specific explanation is no more than self delusion. Your senses themselves constitute an explanation. “Time” itself is an explanation which is simply poorly understood. See if you can follow my paper, “http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ”. That is essentially what we are presently talking about here. My wife and I are off to the Danube come Monday and will be back in about a month.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Rade]

...The only thing anyone can understand are “explanations”...

I completely disagree with this statement.

What "thing" does Doctordick refer to ? It is clear that he claims that an "explanation" is a thing. But this is folly, an "explanation" is not a "thing", for a "thing" is a "metaphysical given", and all "explanations" are man made. Priori to any explanation must first be a thing to be explained, and it is the fact that some thing in general must be priori to any explanation of it that is the only thing anyone can understand, and thus I conclude in opposition to Doctordick philosophy that:

The only thing anyone can understand is that existence exists​

 

[d_jnaneswar]

hey doctor!

i am familiar a bit with z brush, but its not my department. I am a character animator, not a modeler, and zbrush is primarily for modelers.

Anyways, coming back to "explanations", I really feel that I understand what you mean.

Heres what Sir James Jeans said : " We can know nothing of the universe beyond the effects that its happenings produce on our senses, either directly or through the intervention of instruments - telescopes, spectroscopes, etc. All that science of any period can legitimately set out to do then, is to devise a scheme or model that shall account for much of the effects as are known to the period in question".

A great line by an Indian philosopher "The mystics the world over had ever recognized that Reality is ultimately veiled by the very make and mode of functioning of our senses and of the conscious mind which can respond only to the sense perceptions."

But I wonder why you chose to call them "explanations". Explainations of science? Can you explain?

DJ

 

[d_jnaneswar]

ooops,

I just started reading the paper that you put a link for.. And I think it explains what you mean by "explanation".
Ill read it.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

The only thing anyone can understand are “explanations”. Belief that you understand anything beyond some specific explanation is no more than self delusion. Your senses themselves constitute an explanation. “Time” itself is an explanation which is simply poorly understood. See if you can follow my paper, “http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ”. That is essentially what we are presently talking about here. My wife and I are off to the Danube come Monday and will be back in about a month.

Have fun -- Dick

Can you please show the full reference on where this paper has been published?

Zz.

 

[Rade]

Can you please show the full reference on where this paper has been published?Zz.

Dear Zz--this "paper" by Doctordick has never been peer reviwed published--only provided here on PF (ps--the Dr. is on vacation, so I answer in his place until he can return to explain his theory of explanation).

 

[LostInSpaceTime]

Novel.

"If I crunch a chip down to nothing, does that
mean chips don't exist ?"

If this (below quote) is true then no the chip didn't exist.

"The fact that black holes cruch time and space down to nothing gives me evidience of my theories of a dimensionless universe."

 

[AnssiH]

I suppose Doctordick is going to be back soon, so time to reply...

I tried to correspond with Chalmers for a while a number of years ago. I am sure he wouldn't remember me as he insisted on pushing the idea that he knew a lot more about the problem than I did (I took it to be pretty well an emotional reaction sans thought). I could not get it across to him that the problem he was trying to solve was actually a consequence of presuming his world-view was a valid representation of reality: i.e., he was presuming his question had meaning when, if fact, it was “completely up to how one wants to understand the situation”.

Exactly.
Seems you've met a lot of famous people btw :)

But back to your last post on this thread; all in all I think you pretty well understand what I am doing. I think your only confusion seems to be from trying to extend what I am saying beyond what I am actually saying. The sole purpose of the current discussion is to convince you that my equation,

\left{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \vec{\nabla}_i + \sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij} \delta(\vec{x}_i - \vec{x}_j) \right}\vec{\Psi}= K \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi} = iKm \vec{\Psi},
​

does indeed follow directly from my definitions. Trying to interpret what those definitions mean (beyond the meanings required by the deduction itself) isn't really an important issue. Not now anyway and I think my being drawn into such a discussion really isn't beneficial though such things will arise later. The meanings required by the deduction will become an important issue when it comes to interpreting the solutions to that equation. It is at that time that I will start defining other things. What is important is that these additional definitions must not conflict with those definitions already established.
A wise choice; however, you are making it clear that you will not be satisfied until you understand the solutions so we do have some work ahead of us.

Yes, I think there is. It may take a while since I don't always have a lot of time to dedicate on the issue. So, thank you for your patience :)

I have just reread both #477 and #478 (the two are actually one post) and there is quite a bit of the important issues covered there. If you do manage to figure out the details of those two posts, I think you will be close to being convinced that my equation is a valid representation of the most important logical constraints on a flaw-free explanation.

I am sure you will have some questions so I will figure on ironing those out when I get back.

Yeah, I've been spending some time with the #477/#478 post, and I still have some questions I couldn't figure out.

To summarize where I'm at;
I understand the addition of invalid ontological elements, in order to:

- make the number of elements the same in each "present".
- make sure there are no identical present (to make "t" retrievable).
- make sure there are no identical presents even if any given single ontological element was removed from any given present (to make sure a missing element could be retrieved from the table if we were given all but one element)

(Btw, since each tau was associated with a specific X, they together constituted a "single element", i.e. a "missing element" always refers to a "x & tau"-pair... Right? Thought I'd say it out loud since this can cause confusion)
---

Then, a function "f" was defined, as the function which outputs the missing element when input with any given "present" missing any given element. Seen as a vector function:

\vec{(x,\tau)}_n= x_n\hat{x}+\tau_n\hat{\tau} = \vec{f}((x,\tau)_1,(x,\tau)_2, \cdots, (x,\tau)_{n-1})​

(I don't know what "X hat" and "tau hat" mean, and so I couldn't figure out what the middle part of that equation says)
---

Then, a function F was defined, as the difference between the missing index and the result of the function "f". I.e;

F((x,\tau)_1,(x,\tau)_2, \cdots, (x,\tau)_n})= \vec{(x,\tau)}_n - \vec{f}((x,\tau)_1,(x,\tau)_2, \cdots, (x,\tau)_{n-1})\equiv 0​

(Perhaps I asked this before but forgot; what does \equiv mean there exactly?)

Would it be correct to say that F is a function which "tests" every element of a "present" with some function f? Or is it more proper to just say it is "any function which returns 0 when its input with a full present"?
---

And here I start to struggle little bit more. I'm note sure how does the above turn into:

\sum_{i \neq j}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i -\tau_j) = 0​

I understood this is just one of many functions that satisfies the requirements for F, and since we have chosen it as F, it will have an effect on what labels we put on the ontological elements. To quote you:
"It is thus a fact that the equation will constrain all labels to be different and any specific collection of labels can be reproduced by the simple act of adding “invalid ontological elements” until all the wrong answers are eliminated."

What I don't understand is the latter part of that sentence. Perhaps I have misundestood something, but maybe you could just explain in more detail, how is it that it reproduces a specific collection?
---

Then we get to the propability function. Thank you for the helpful information about "complex conjugate". I understand the need of squaring psi, but I don't know what the psi itself was to accomplish. I went back to the old posts, but all I can find is the idea of seeing any result of any function as a vector. (I do remember the stuff about squaring and re-normalizing)

Consequently, I cannot figure out what you mean by;

With the “invalid ontological elements” I introduced to make that sum over Dirac's delta function become the F function I needed, I know that, whenever I have the correct set of numerical references to my ontological elements,

\sum_{i \neq j}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i -\tau_j) = 0,
​

If I don't, then that sum is infinite! Against this, I also know that, if I have an incorrect set,

\vec{\Psi}(x_1,\tau_1,x_2,\tau_2,\cdots,x_n,\tau_n,t)=0
​

as the probability of seeing that particular set of references must be zero and the probability is the sum of the positive definite squares of the components of Psi (that means that every one of those components must be zero and Psi must totally vanish). This means that no matter what arguments are inserted as numerical references to that collection of ontological elements, the product of those two above must be zero (if one isn't zero, the other is). It follows that

\sum_{i \neq j}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i -\tau_j)\vec{\Psi}(x_1,\tau_1,x_2,\tau_2,\cdots,x_n,\tau_n,t) = 0,
​

without exception.

Perhaps you could explain that to me in more detail?

Thank you
-Anssi

 

[Evo]

I'm afraid that this thread has been allowed to remain in violation of the guidelines on personal theories for too long.

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374