Harv, please notice that the phrase in the points I have asked you to accept as reasonable is "it is possible", not "it is possible for us"! Again, you are reading things into what I am saying which are not there! I suspect very strongly that the problem is that you think you already know where I am going when in fact you don't. You keep putting up straw men to knock down. The straw men are invariably not in my presentation but only in your mind. The only explanation of your reactions is that you truly do not understand what I am setting up.


****
Harv: we aren't talking about plural objects since we don't know enough about 'Ultimate Reality' to know if plurality of objects even makes sense.
****

We don't know "enough"? Harv, we don't "know" anything! You don't seem to understand that right here you are making an assumption that plurality of objects does not make sense. My position (that the things which make up "Ultimate Reality" can be labeled with the same symbols which label numbers) makes no such assumption. It is possible you are correct and, in that case 'Ultimate Reality' consists of something which need only be referred to with one label; however, it is also possible you are wrong and that multiple labels are reasonable. My picture takes in both possibilities whereas yours does not.

****
Harv: All we know about 'Ultimate Reality' is the concept of 'Ultimate Reality' which we must assume is a valid concept.
****

No, we don't even have to assume that. The set of labels which might represent 'Ultimate Reality' might be an empty set. Also, as far as my putting quotes around "things", there is no real significance to it other than the fact that I am trying to attract attention to the word. As I said earlier, I leave the meaning in your hands with one exception: I simply request that there is nothing you can refer to (i.e., no thing) which cannot be referenced by the word "thing".

****
Harv: To get away from this, we cannot identify the true concepts underlying Ultimate Reality as anything more basic than the concept itself.
****

I am not concerned with what "we" can identify. In fact, what we can identify is of no consequence at all. On the other hand, what you want essentially assumes that it is impossible to do so; forever and ever by any entity. If we are going to include all possibilities, you need to present a proof that Ultimate Reality cannot consist of multiple elements. It should be clear to you that my position is to include all possibilities.

****
Harv: (6). It is possible to label 'Ultimate Reality' with exactly the same symbols commonly used to label numbers. This requires only one number.
****

If you understood what I am proposing, you would understand that suggestion is clearly not valid! If you are going to insert the constraint that "this requires only one number", you better be prepared to prove one number is sufficient to cover all possibilities. I don't think you have any reason to restrict "all possibilities" to the single case where 'Ultimate Reality' consists of no sub categories of any kind. That strikes me as a rather insupportable assumption and, if you are rational, you should agree with that position.

****
Harv: The phrase "that portion of true 'Ultimate Reality'" is meaningless since we cannot talk about 'portions' or 'true' with respect to our concept which we labeled 'Ultimate Reality' (or by a number as in (6)).
****

The issue is not what "we" can talk about but rather "what can" be talked about. If an analysis is to be applicable to any possible situation, that analysis cannot be constrained to the concept that 'Ultimate Reality' cannot be expressed in terms of 'portions'. Not unless you can prove that is a fact of 'Ultimate Reality'. Essentially you are assuming that your constrained concept of 'Ultimate Reality' is "the valid concept".

****
Harv: Any further breakdown of 'Ultimate Reality' is an assumption based on our experience of the world we experience, and we have no way to know if this experience extends to the concept of 'Ultimate Reality'.
****

At this point it is very clear that you do not understand what I am setting up. I am not performing a breakdown at all. I am setting up an attack which includes the possibility that such a breakdown might be possible; that is quite a different issue. My analysis applies equally well to the case where such a breakdown is not possible as it does to one where the breakdown is possible. It is you who is making an assumption. You are assuming that such a breakdown simply is not possible by anybody for all time. My question is, how did you come to know that?

****
Harv: I don't think understanding 'Ultimate Reality' is as analogous as you think.
****

You don't think that because you do not understand what I am saying. At this point, that comment is nothing more than an opinion concerning something you simply do not understand.

****
Harv: You can label 'it', but it is one label or one number. You can use '1', '0', 'things', etc.. etc...
****

You are confusing two very different issues. "What I can do" is quite different from "what can be done". If I am going to examine the entire problem, my analysis must be concerned with "what could possibly be done", not with what I can do.

****
Harv: Dick, you are using classical logic to decipher Ultimate Reality
****

No Harv, I am not deciphering anything. I am proposing a procedure for analyzing the problem of deciphering Ultimate Reality. As I have said a number of times, I am using our common agreement (as far as it goes) as a rude rudder to direct your thoughts. If you wish to deny me the use of classical logic as a direction mechanism so be it but, without logic, I see little possibility of communication of any kind. In the discourse we are currently having, I have yet to define a single exact concept.

****
Harv: .. but we don't know if classical logic applies to 'Ultimate Reality'! This is the reason we cannot say more about 'Ultimate Reality' than the label itself implies. Can't you see the obstacle in what you are doing?
****

The only obstacle to what I am doing is your refusal to think about the issues I present to you.

Consider my comments carefully please -- Dick

Is Ultimate Reality some sort of computer game?

Sounds like it might be fun!

Long post of dialog from a philosophy message board? Could have been applied to astronomy on this board, philosophically that is. What it needs is a prelude stating something like "I had this dialog recently and it applies to astronomy...etc..." Just a suggestion.

..deep thoughts eh? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

This looks like a discussion I'd like to get in on. But as Grapes of Wrath pointed out, some context would be good before I dive headlong into what looks to be someone else's conversation....

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Sorry to do this to you but what I am trying to do is get away from asinine commentaries. This fellow (who's handle is "Harv") and I am trying to resolve a very simple issue which seem to generate a lot of nonsensical posting and, as Harv does not wish to disclose his identify, I have tried to move the discussion to a forum with fewer trash posts. Considering the number of posts to my initial comment, the idea seems to be a failure. However, it is possible that you all are intelligent people (not likely but possible). If you wish to join in on an intelligent conversation please first read the sequences starting at:

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/expl...ssages/8.shtml

If you want to know what we are talking about, read the publication at,

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/Contents.htm

If you are a troll, your posts will drive us elsewhere; however, if you are a thinking person, there are things here you might benefit from. Please do not post to this thread unless you really think you have something beneficial to say. I am hoping for an intelligent conversation.

Have fun -- Dick

Just a quick comment! If you want to get the whole discussion, you will need to use "Back to Thread Topics". Later entries are above as per the convention in forums.

Have fun -- Dick

Hey, I have a better idea. It seems like you're defending your paper ("The Foundations of Physical Reality") against arguments made by this Harv character. Why don't you lay out your central claims and arguments; we can see Harv's comments above, and given both, will delve into the conversation if it seems interesting. It strikes me as a little unfair to ask us to go back and check out all the background stuff that you and Harv already have hashed out.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

After a quick run through your prologue and first chapter, it seems like your main thrust revolves around the philosophy of language; that is, how our words are defined and used. Maybe Frege's theories on sense and reference could be of use here. Or maybe I need to keep reading.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Or maybe analytic philosophy is barking up the wrong rhetorical tree. As I read on, it sounds more and more as though you are engaging in a program of Cartesian doubt. I'm curious to see where this leads... it certainly didn't get ol' Rene very far.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

OK, IANAT, but I think you have chosen the wrong group. This is an astronomy board.

Dear D.D.
I happen to agree with Grapes in this case, (this is an astronomy board,) and even though you kind of did what I suggested in a follow-up, your attitude is a bit too snooty for me, so tah-tah, and good luck. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-21 03:09 ]</font>

Well, I screwed that post up! Apparently hit the return key when I shouldn't have. Sorry about that.

Grapes and Chip seem to feel that "reality" has nothing to do with Astronomy. If that is the case then have a ball; there are certainly no constraints on your efforts.

Have fun -- Dick

And I quote "<snip snip> I simply request that there is nothing you can refer to (i.e., no thing) which cannot be referenced by the word "thing"."


Wow, this is wayyyy too easy. My submission: God.

God is not a noun. It just... is.

Evolution is a noun. And one I agree with also.

DJ

To "DJ"

A pure "Troll" response if I ever saw one. If you had read the conversation you refer to, you would comprehend (although I will admit it is possible that the thought is too complex to be comprehended by your intellect) that I was opening the interpretation of the word "thing" to any commonly understood definition of "thing" so long that the definition be understood to refer to anything! That is, " I simply request that there is nothing you can refer to (i.e., no thing) which cannot be referenced by the word "thing"." Now, that is a very simple constraint to implement.

What you are saying, whether you understand it or not, is that you are mentally incapable of implementing that constraint in your interpretation of my presentation. If you go back to the conversation, you will find that I also include the the option that, if such a constraint is beyond your ability to comprehend, simply give me a word or phrase which will fullfill that bill and I will use that phrase. The original offer was made to Harv. I made that offer to Harv because I am attempting to communicate an idea to him. As I have no interest in communicating with you, you may consider the offer null and void.

Have fun (and I know you will) -- Dick

Oh, my!
We've all been duly humbled, I'm sure... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

P.S. If you will allow a mere mortal to give you some advice, you better come up with a connection to astronomy for your post. Completely off-topic posts are not tolerated here.

Nor are rudeness and mud-slinging. Very bad, very bad.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-22 16:04 ]</font>

Dr. Dick,

I read a bit of your paper when I was at work on Saturday, and I posted a few off-the-cuff comments....

... but I agree with everyone else here: If you really want people to comment on your work, you would be well-served by not insulting them when they ask questions and suggesting that they can't possibly comprehend your work. If you really believe that no one has embraced your work simply because everyone is too dense to understand it, maybe you're the one who's missing something.

__________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

Well, I wouldn't put it that way--more like, the discussion of the concept of reality has little to do with astronomy, although I differ somewhat with informant: off-topic threads are sometimes tolerated, but not nasty ones.

Shades of HWSNBN. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Mr. Overrated,

You ought to give us something other than "overrated" to go by. I was born and raised in the Chicago area so I feel a little camaraderie with you but not too much.

****
Overrated: I read a bit of your paper when I was at work on Saturday, and I posted a few off-the-cuff comments....
****

Anything past Chapter 1?

No, I do not believe that no one has embraced my work simply because everyone is too dense to understand it. Rather, I believe that no one with sufficient education to follow the logic has read it objectively. I wrote this about 40 years ago and have had sufficient interaction with people over that time to convince me that people who have the education to understand it do not read it. What they do is scan it; look at my conclusions and, convinced that my conclusions fall entirely outside the conventional picture of reality, conclude that I am one quart short of a six pack without actually reading the logic.

Now, I do not know what you are capable of following, but if your knowledge is anywhere near the average on the internet, you do not have either the intellect nor the education to follow my presentation. That is not an insult at all as there are very few people in the world who can really understand what I am talking about. Furthermore, I have no need for anyone to comment on my work as I have had 40 years to think about the questions and implications it raises and am completely prepared to defend any aspect of it.

And I am well aware that I am missing something. I am missing rational conversation about what I have discovered. Now that would be fun!

Have fun -- Dick

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Combine it with arrogance, and it becomes combustible.

I have looked through your chapter 1. This chapter contains too many problems to mention. Here is but one example:
(1) Under Part IV, you mention that
You then attempt to order these sets using a parameter you call time. You then assert time must be continuous, which flatly contradicts your statement that the subset are finite. Continuous-->infinite.

I will not even attempt to explain to you that your theory requires no two subsets to have the same time parameter, (i.e., nothing is simultaneous?) or the fact you use the symbol for a contour integral for an n-dimensional volume integral starting in eq:1.4.

You have obviously read several math and physics texts, but it seems you are trying to shoehorn a theory of epistomology into the mathematical forumation of quantum mechanics. The epistomological definitions are stretched and squeezed in a way so that when you attempt to fit them into the Dirac equation et al., they don't mean anything. I would give you advice on how to fix this, but it is obvious you are incapable of taking advice from anyone. I would ask whether there is a reason why this opus is not published, but I think I know why.

Hi Zathras,

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

You have certainly pointed that out by your response.

****
Zathras: I have looked through your chapter 1. This chapter contains too many problems to mention. Here is but one example: [a quote of my paper] --You then attempt to order these sets using a parameter you call time. You then assert time must be continuous, which flatly contradicts your statement that the subset are finite. Continuous-->infinite.
****

You are clearly confusing the issue of what information is available to your analysis ("the number of subsets examined must be finite") with "the number of subsets in total" which certainly is not so constrained. Since the number of subsets examined is finite, they (the ones which were examined) may be ordered. I have simply (in the model proposed) defined the parameter of order to be time. Now, if that model is to be applicable to the circumstance of additional subsets and the ordering of those sets it to be maintained as open, then it should be clear that one must leave the possibility open that the ordinal position of the additional set may be between any two examined sets. If you understand mathematics, you will find that to be essentially the definition of a continuous variable.

The issue here is very simple: the information which the model is to fit is constrained to be finite; however, this fact does not constrain the model to be finite. The fundamental thing here is that the success of a continuous model is not a defense of a continuous reality. Put it another way, a discrete reality is most easily modeled with a continuous model.

****
Zathras: I will not even attempt to explain to you that your theory requires no two subsets to have the same time parameter, (i.e., nothing is simultaneous?)
****

By the way, what I present is no theory; it is no more than another way of looking at information.

And, no, only things in a given subset are "simultaneous" under the definition that same time means "simultaneous".

****
Zathras: or the fact you use the symbol for a contour integral for an n-dimensional volume integral starting in eq:1.4.
****

That I admit is perhaps confusing; however, I make it quite clear that I am doing so! Since I do not have any contour integrals in the presentation, a reasonably bright person should be able to accommodate that specialized notation. It sure simplifies the equations one whole of a lot and I think it is well worth the effort.

****
Zathras: I would ask whether there is a reason why this opus is not published, but I think I know why.
****

It should be clear to you that it is no skin off my nose if it is never read! All I might get out of it would be the fun of discussing the implications if anyone who could follow it would talk to me. I am of the opinion that the thing is way too far above your head. Prove me wrong if you think you can. Your opening shot is certainly far short of the mark.

Have fun -- Dick